# Looking to improve my wedding photography, any advice welcome!



## dorian7 (Oct 1, 2012)

Hi all,

I have 4 solo weddings under my belt now (1 last year 3 this year) and I am looking at the best ways to improve my photos at this point. I know the obvious is practice and work on my skills but I am more interested in discussing what types of things could be the best value for improvement. Here is what I have been shooting with:

Canon 50D
Tokina 11-16 f 2.8
Canon EF 28-135 f 3.5-5.6 (kit lense)
Canon EF 50 f 1.8
Canon Speedlite 480exii

So far this set-up has certainly gotten the job done well but I am looking to improve the sharpness of my images and the overall quality. More specifically when I take large group photos, when you magnify the pic on the computer, peoples faces are not very sharp. Photography is just a part-time gig for me so I don't want to invest a ton of money at this point but would like to get some improvements.

What I have been considering is mostly the 5d3 or the 6D and possibly the 24-105 f 4 but any advice would be gladly appreciated. My biggest complaint about he 50D body is the lack of low-light performace. Seems like I am always fighting it during dusk (even with the 1.8). You can see a few images I uploaded by clicking on my gallery.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 1, 2012)

Really, the only way to improve is to practice, practice, practice.  That said, your kit is sorely lacking.  A second body and speedlight are absolutely ESSENTIAL, especially if you're shooting solo.

I'm not a Canonite, so I can't speak to the capabilities of specific bodies, but good lowlight performance is a must, as is fast glass.  Bin the 28-125 and pick up a 24-70 and 70-200 in 2.8.

As far as the practice, join ModelMayhem, and look for subjects there for practice.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 1, 2012)

Welcome aboard.
I hope you're not shooting weddings with only one camera. 

To diagnose your sharpness issue, it would really help to have more details and to see some of the problem images (in a post, don't make use chase them).  Maybe you're shutter speed wasn't fast enough, maybe you're zooming in too close and over-analyzing your photos.

As mentioned, most wedding photographers will be using zooms with a max aperture of F2.8.  For your camera (and on a budget) I'd suggest the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8.  Although if you upgrade to full frame bodies, this lens won't be compatible.  In that case, you'll want to look at something in the 24-70mm range.  

But before you run out and throw money at the problem (buying new gear), try to diagnose any issues to see if they can be corrected with better technique, not just better gear.

As for the best way to improve...yes, practice, practice, practice.
Also, if you can work with/for other photographers, you'll likely learn a lot.


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 1, 2012)

Big Mike said:


> Welcome aboard.
> I hope you're not shooting weddings with only one camera.
> 
> To diagnose your sharpness issue, it would really help to have more details and to see some of the problem images (in a post, don't make use chase them).  Maybe you're shutter speed wasn't fast enough, maybe you're zooming in too close and over-analyzing your photos.
> ...




Thanks for the advice Mike! I think I probably am just over-analyzing as it is only with pictures of ~ 30+ people lined up. I will put up an example when I am on my primary computer later.

I posted the pics that I originally linked to.


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 1, 2012)

Anyone else?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 1, 2012)

Copy the photographers you idol. Seriously. If you want your pictures to be as good, than shoot the same way they do.


----------



## MK3Brent (Oct 1, 2012)

Fix your tripod.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 1, 2012)

Calibrate your monitor... and work hard on your post processing! Look at the images you posted... look at the skin tones.... 

The first and fourth shots look like Zombies.... the others are better but still no consistency!


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Calibrate your monitor... and work hard on your post processing! Look at the images you posted... look at the skin tones....
> 
> The first and fourth shots look like Zombies.... the others are better but still no consistency!



Thanks for the input, you obviously have never been to Oregon before... We don't get much sun 

I am confused why a customer would want all of their wedding picture to look the exact same? I get having consistency across each set but across the whole shoot?

I haven't done a ton of weddings up this has never been a comment pre or post production from them.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 2, 2012)

dorian7 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Calibrate your monitor... and work hard on your post processing! Look at the images you posted... look at the skin tones....
> ...



So skin tones should change from shot to shot? NOT! (and sun has nothing to do with it.).

(and since you have "Do not Edit" turned on... we can't show you!) 

I won't bother responding again......


----------



## tirediron (Oct 2, 2012)

dorian7 said:


> ...Thanks for the input, you obviously have never been to Oregon before... We don't get much sun


 WHAT does that have to do with anything? I live in Victoria, just a few miles north; the weather's pretty much the same. 



dorian7 said:


> I am confused why a customer would want all of their wedding picture to look the exact same? I get having consistency across each set but across the whole shoot?


Perhaps they don't, BUT people's skin-tones don't normally change over the course of a day, and therefore the photographs should reflect that.  As far as I know, grey is almost never an appropriate skin-tone.



dorian7 said:


> I haven't done a ton of weddings up this has never been a comment pre or post production from them.


Don't forget, unlike your wedding clients, most of us here are photographers, (with varying levels of experience) and are much more familiar with what is generally considered acceptable and appropriate in professional work. Images posted here, especially wedding images are generally given thorough critique. It's not personal, so don't take it that way!


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 2, 2012)

Calibrate your monitor. Your colors are VERY inconsistent. 
The cameras you are considering-either one will be good. I'd want to have two full frames if possible-one for a backup. 
The 24-105 is not going to be adequate in low light situations. You REALLY need constant f/2.8 or better lenses. 

For group shots-spend time surfing flickr for posing inspiration. As for the number one problem in group shots-study aperture in depth. 

The number one thing I believe you can do for a wedding and portrait photographer is attend WPPI. You will be able to attend a multitude of classes and meet up with hundreds and hundreds of photographers in the business. The amount of education you receive in that week of WPPI classes is out of this world.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 2, 2012)

What are you on about?! Victoria is in its own freakish little microclimate with sunshine all the time, practically! You can SEE the pacific northwest from Dallas Rd, but you're not IN the pacific northwest at all. You're in some bizarro honemooner land.

I am going to take a somewhat dissenting viewpoint here. There's a strong trend to balance the colors so that the skin tones are always the most flattering, and I think that actually looks a little weird. When someone's in the shade, I am ok with letting a little blue tone in to the whites, it looks natural. In direct sun (or lights simulating direct sun) warm it up a little extra, sure. Inside? Generally very warm is a good answer, again, it looks natural.

Just as the eye adjusts in the real world and tends to see white things as white regardless of the ambient light, the mind and eye will adjust when looking at a photograph, and you avoid a slightly surreal look.

That said:

1) push the tones a little bit toward the flattering tones, it'll make the customer happy
2) customers don't have any idea what they're looking at, but they'll know they like the warmer one better if you give them a choice


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> dorian7 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Thanks for the input, you obviously have never been to Oregon before... We don't get much sun
> ...


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 2, 2012)

amolitor said:


> What are you on about?! Victoria is in its own freakish little microclimate with sunshine all the time, practically! You can SEE the pacific northwest from Dallas Rd, but you're not IN the pacific northwest at all. You're in some bizarro honemooner land.
> 
> I am going to take a somewhat dissenting viewpoint here. There's a strong trend to balance the colors so that the skin tones are always the most flattering, and I think that actually looks a little weird. When someone's in the shade, I am ok with letting a little blue tone in to the whites, it looks natural. In direct sun (or lights simulating direct sun) warm it up a little extra, sure. Inside? Generally very warm is a good answer, again, it looks natural.
> 
> ...



Thanks amolitor! I really appreciate this.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 2, 2012)

The technical quality of these samples is distressingly sub-par. Artistically, they seem pretty good, but technically??....man,these need work. 

These are what I have long referred to as "web reductions". Smallish, low-rez images, which MUST BE size-reduced, and sharpened, and color-profile tagged, for display on the web. Now, MANY photos lose a LOT of impact when converted from big, native-sized images down to web reductions...some types of images simply look pallid on the web. Wedding pics, OTOH, are one of the few genres, along with portraiture, where web reductions often look QUITE lovely, since they often have only a few, large, low-frequency-detail subjects...like say, a man and a woman, or four people, or a church, and a man and a woman...you know, great big "things"...no high-frequency detail or distant vistas...no microscopic detail, as on insects,etc. 

I think what you need to do is to learn how to make decent web reductions, and how to process photos for a pleasing look, color-wise. You seem to be doing "okay" (at least on these 4 frames) artistically, but your computer skill and your craft seems like they need a little lift. Web reductions are the way MOST photogs are evaluated these days...not by seeing big gallery prints, or portfolios, but by how our pictures look when they are viewed ON THE WEB.


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 2, 2012)

Derrel said:


> The technical quality of these samples is distressingly sub-par. Artistically, they seem pretty good, but technically??....man,these need work.
> 
> These are what I have long referred to as "web reductions". Smallish, low-rez images, which MUST BE size-reduced, and sharpened, and color-profile tagged, for display on the web. Now, MANY photos lose a LOT of impact when converted from big, native-sized images down to web reductions...some types of images simply look pallid on the web. Wedding pics, OTOH, are one of the few genres, along with portraiture, where web reductions often look QUITE lovely, since they often have only a few, large, low-frequency-detail subjects...like say, a man and a woman, or four people, or a church, and a man and a woman...you know, great big "things"...no high-frequency detail or distant vistas...no microscopic detail, as on insects,etc.
> 
> I think what you need to do is to learn how to make decent web reductions, and how to process photos for a pleasing look, color-wise. You seem to be doing "okay" (at least on these 4 frames) artistically, but your computer skill and your craft seems like they need a little lift. Web reductions are the way MOST photogs are evaluated these days...not by seeing big gallery prints, or portfolios, but by how our pictures look when they are viewed ON THE WEB.



Thanks for the advice. Do you know of any good resources to learn more about this?


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 2, 2012)

dorian7 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > What are you on about?! Victoria is in its own freakish little microclimate with sunshine all the time, practically! You can SEE the pacific northwest from Dallas Rd, but you're not IN the pacific northwest at all. You're in some bizarro honemooner land.
> ...



Just keep in mind that amolitor is always the "dissenter". He is always going against what everyone else says. And he is neither a professional photographer, or a wedding photographer. And others here that do shoot professionally and do shoot weddings are gong to say the same things I said!  So pick who you want to listen too.. carefully!


----------



## tirediron (Oct 2, 2012)

amolitor said:


> What are you on about?! Victoria is in its own freakish little microclimate with sunshine all the time, practically! You can SEE the pacific northwest from Dallas Rd, but you're not IN the pacific northwest at all. You're in some bizarro honemooner land.


  Whatchootalkin'bout Willis?  Our sun didn't start until the end of July this year...  oh, and there's no "S" in Pacific Northwet! 



amolitor said:


> I am going to take a somewhat dissenting viewpoint here. There's a strong trend to balance the colors so that the skin tones are always the most flattering...


  There's definitely a case to be made for that, and that's what many clients want (even if they don't know that, as you've alluded to), BUT...  what Charlie, Derrel, MLeek and I were trying to get across to the OP is that skin-tones should be skin-toned.


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 2, 2012)

tirediron said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > What are you on about?! Victoria is in its own freakish little microclimate with sunshine all the time, practically! You can SEE the pacific northwest from Dallas Rd, but you're not IN the pacific northwest at all. You're in some bizarro honemooner land.
> ...



I appreciate it too. I will most certainly pay more attention in post-production. Any advice is much appreciated, I am always looking to improve and learn new things.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 2, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Just keep in mind that amolitor is always the "dissenter". He is always going against what everyone else says. And he is neither a professional photographer, or a wedding photographer. And others here that do shoot professionally and do shoot weddings are gong to say the same things I said!  So pick who you want to listen too.. carefully!



Wow.

Some of the best photos I've ever seen were taken by absolute amateurs. 

Dismissing someone's opinion, or suggesting that someone else dismiss is, simply because the person expressing it isn't a "professional" is short-sighted and naive...


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 2, 2012)

A question for the OP: Were the clients pictured in the examples you've posted happy with your work?

Because, at the end of the day, all of the advice and criticism and commentary means little in comparison...


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 2, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> A question for the OP: Were the clients pictured in the examples you've posted happy with your work?
> 
> Because, at the end of the day, all of the advice and criticism and commentary means little in comparison...



Hi Steve,

Yes, they were very happy. I have never marketed, solicited or advertised. My business is all based on people seeing the photos and wanting the same.

Thanks, this is a great point!


----------



## Canuk (Oct 2, 2012)

I agree w/ what others have said here, Mleek, Tirediron, Derrel, and Charlie, that the skin tones do not look flattering in some of the pics.

The title of your post says that you were looking to improve, you have been given good advise, what you do with it is up to you. Remember your clients have an emotional connection to your work, and will not be as critical of it as someone who is not emotionally detached.


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 2, 2012)

Canuk said:


> I agree w/ what others have said here, Mleek, Tirediron, Derrel, and Charlie, that the skin tones do not look flattering in some of the pics.
> 
> The title of your post says that you were looking to improve, you have been given good advise, what you do with it is up to you. Remember your clients have an emotional connection to your work, and will not be as critical of it as someone who is not emotionally detached.



Thanks Canuk,

I will certainly work to improve.

I haven't really got much feedback for improving equipment yet... My main question is do you think it is more cost beneficial to upgrade the body sooner or get some better glass?


----------



## amolitor (Oct 2, 2012)

I think the consensus is that you need a second body ASAP, actually. Whether you use it or not, you need to have one available for when the first one dies unexpectedly. If you don't shoot weddings every weekend, you might consider simply renting one for every gig, for now. You can do the same with glass, find out what works for you and so on.

Two bodies, though, is a dead necessity.


----------



## Canuk (Oct 2, 2012)

I would definitely say better glass. A 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200f2.8 I think are considered the staples of the wedding photographer these days, but I am not a wedding photographer nor pro.
The Canon L series lenses are definitely some of the best, but are not cheap. Both Tamron and Sigma make some pretty good lenses, but the trick is to do some research and figure out what you need. I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, very good image quality, but the AF is not the fastest nor the quietest.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 2, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> A question for the OP: Were the clients pictured in the examples you've posted happy with your work?
> 
> Because, at the end of the day, all of the advice and criticism and commentary means little in comparison...



Steve, I normally respect your opinions on many subject photographic, but average, photographically uneducated,unsophisticated clients are happy with danged near ANYTHING of mediocre quality, or higher. With a decent, modern camera, just getting good focus and decent color is no big deal these days. I've seen people who were THRILLED with work that I personally would consider very marginal, or worse, when ranked as "professional photographic work". CLients are often happy with photos simply because of their *emotional connection* with the subjects, and so, even barely-adequate work is often met with quite a bit of customer appreciation. I am **in no way** talking about thew OP's photos here--this is a well-known fact: the general buying public buys family and wedding photos as-needed and their appreciation/enjoyment of the photos is in huge part, tied to their emotional connection with the subjects shown in the photos.

We need to separate pleasing the customer from "improving one's work". Pleasing the customer also involves* making them feel good* about the photographic services you're providing. A very conscientious, flattering, smooth-talking, anticipation-building patter goes a long way toward making customer's "happy" with the work. A panel of one's peers, or disinterested third persons, OTOH, will have entirely different criteria for judging skill and quality than will the people shown in wedding photos.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 2, 2012)

dorian7 said:


> Canuk said:
> 
> 
> > I agree w/ what others have said here, Mleek, Tirediron, Derrel, and Charlie, that the skin tones do not look flattering in some of the pics.
> ...



Get better *software*. Or become *more-skilled with the SOFTWARE* you already have.Digital shooting is 75% SOFTWARE, and preparation and presentation of image "files". Buying gear is EASY to do. Learning how to better prepare and present your images takes time, effort, and dedication. AVERAGE glass on a decent body, like a Nikon D3s let's say, is AMPLY good enough, as long as the shooter or his Photoshop prep worker knows how to prep the files and make the pictures look "good". 

You wanna know how to improve your work??? Get better with your software. It's like you want to go to the grocery store and buy a whole basket FULL of great ingredients (some new lenses and a new camera), and then *microwave cook an elegant meal*. Uh-no...that's not the way it works...it's not the raw ingredients that count the absolute most--it's the COOKING of them...


----------



## Canuk (Oct 2, 2012)

I do agree that you will need a second body when shooting weddings, it is something that I would probably rent for these gigs for time being. Buy better glass that you will have all the time to practice with will make a difference in that you will know what your equipment is capable of without trying to learn while trying to shoot a gig.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 2, 2012)

I totally glossed over the equipment part. Blame it on the migraine I am battling. Sorry!
Full frame camera. The new 6D is a good choice as is a 5D markII
F/2.8 lenses. The standards are the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 24-70 f/2.8
The ideal package being the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the 5D Mark III
Speedlights and off camera triggers. You  have a good dedicated speedlight already so I'd add in a few Yongnuo's or older canon's that you can use off camera. I have a BUNCH of old speedlights and flash guns that aren't even made for canon that I can use off camera. It's one CHEAP CHEAP way to acquire a LOT of flash power. I think I have 5 or 6 and I am pretty sure I have under $100 bucks in them. 
Which leads me to budget. I gave you about $8000 worth of camera gear only. Besides the camera-which I wouldn't skimp on-there are budget options that are open to you. They are a little bit of compromise, but they are also MUCH better than the consumer options or even the variable aperture professional lenses. 
I'll give you a good better and best in the BUDGET categories. . Obviously the price will rise with those too.

Good:
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Macro $769
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 $449
7D $1499
Total $2717 NEW. 
This is a "for now" package to get you what you absolutely NEED NOW and then begin upgrading. You'll want to upgrade that 17-50 first, then probably camera bodies. I'd say within the next 2 years. It's kind of a "I have no other choice" package. IMO it's not enough savings off the next package to make it worth purchasing. I'd use the 50D for now and purchase better lenses. 
The 7D is a pretty capable performer at high ISO's. There is noise, but if you expose properly it is definitely removable in LightRoom or PhotoShop's ACR. 
A bit weak, but very capable. The Tamron lens is a beautiful, sharp 70-200 lens. It does not have IS (VC in Tamron terms) and that is most definitely handy in wedding photography. Combine that with the 7D having noise at it's highest ISO and you really want to be able to use that IS. It is also a Macro lens-bonus on those ring shots. It's minimum focus is at about 18 inches through the WHOLE range, so at 200 you can still focus at 18 inches. I own this lens and I am impressed by it's capabilities for it's price. BECAUSE it is a macro lens-it's slower to focus. So if you want to use it for sports it will work (I did it) but it will be slower to focus. This is the slowest of the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses.
The 17-50 is _much_ sharper than your kit lens and it has the necessary f/2.8. Again, no IS, but at that focal length its not NECESSARY, just really handy to have. Downfalls are that it is a crop sensor only lens-so down the line that may hurt. It's not over the top sharp, but outstanding in it's price range. Far better than the kit lens. 

Better: 
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM MACRO $699
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 $474
5D mark II $1799
$3272
This is kind of a "for now" package that you'll replace over maybe 5 years. You'll want to upgrade eventually. Probably most especially that 28-75 lens. 
The sigma 70-200 is the same basic lens as the Tamron but it's faster on the focus. I've heard tell it's sharper as well, but I do not personally know. I have a friend who shoots with one and her shots are gorgeous with it. So are mine that I've shot with the Tamron. HOWEVER... this is a discontinued lens so you will have to find it used. The link given is one in E+ condition at Adorama. 
The new Tamron 28-75 is a lens that is (obviously) full frame capable. It's sharp and has the f/2.8 you'll need. Excellent budget choice and considering the price PLUS the fact that it is full frame compatible I'd choose it over the 17-50 every day unless you have a NEED for the 17-50. 
The 5D mark II is a full frame camera with the necessary low light ability for high ISO's. Considering where the price is at? I'd choose this over the 7D for a wedding photographer all day long. It does have some focus downfalls, none of which will be felt in wedding photography much at all. I use it regularly for weddings. 

Best:
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS $1399
Tamron 24-70 f.2.8 VC $1299
Canon 6D $2099 
Total: $4797
Sigma's OS is the equivalent to IS in canon. This is a SUPERBLY sharp lens and it has the OS/IS you really  need-especially at this focal length. 
The new Tamron 24-70 VC has some amazing reviews on it. Super sharp and has VC to boot. That f/2.8 that you NEED for weddings.
The  6D reviews and information on the sensor are impressive. It will give  you the benefit of full frame which for low light is a necessity. PLUS  the new sensor which gives you even better low light ability with ISO's far beyond that of the 5D2. It's also  PreOrder only right now, so you have to wait. Given the difference in price? there isn't much reason not to choose it over the 7D and/or 5D II in your position. If $500 is going to break the bank, then that would be reason. 

Another BEST option for the lenses

Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (NON-IS) $1399 OR the older version of the IS used $1200-1400. 
Older version of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 $1200-$1400


SOOOOOOO... After all that, what would I do? 
Start collecting lenses. You need those most of all. The 50D isn't IDEAL by a long shot, but it can perform-as you have found-and if you use the lenses and flash to supplement it will be OK for a little while.

BUT first and foremost I'd book my trip to WPPI. I am dead serious. You can find room mates and people to share the ticket with. I think it cost me under $1000 to attend last year and that included my hotel, airfare, ticket to WPPI. (I also have a coupon code I'll share if you are going. I believe it still works) Registration usually opens in October sometime. Register early (like wait for the minute it opens and register immediately!) if you want to purchase any additional master classes. They go FAST. All of the platform classes are included in a full registration!!! http://www.wppionline.com/show/classes.shtml


----------



## tbc (Oct 2, 2012)

dorian7 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the input, you obviously have never been to Oregon before... We don't get much sun
> 
> I am confused why a customer would want all of their wedding picture to look the exact same? I get having consistency across each set but across the whole shoot?
> 
> I haven't done a ton of weddings up this has never been a comment pre or post production from them.



Some clients want their pictures look like a set, but as the photographer, you MUST have your pictures white balance and quality be the same as a set. I am not sure you provide album in your wedding packages, but if you put all pictures with different white balance and pictures quality in an album, they gonna look suck.


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 3, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> BUT first and foremost I'd book my trip to WPPI. I am dead serious. You can find room mates and people to share the ticket with. I think it cost me under $1000 to attend last year and that included my hotel, airfare, ticket to WPPI. (I also have a coupon code I'll share if you are going. I believe it still works) Registration usually opens in October sometime. Register early (like wait for the minute it opens and register immediately!) if you want to purchase any additional master classes. They go FAST. All of the platform classes are included in a full registration!!! Wedding Photography Courses | Photography Strategies




Thanks for all the advice! I may just go to that. Would you mind sending me the codes?


----------



## dorian7 (Oct 11, 2012)

I appreciate all the advice that everyone here gave me and I am working on getting some new equipment with the help of craigslist.

I got a new 15" Macbook Pro with 8gb ram and the Highres antiglare screen (upgraded from a 6 year old HP) -- This has already done leaps and bounds for my accuracy when editing. I was also able to pick up a mint condition Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 on CL. This lens is crazy awesome even on my 50D body. The next step will be getting either the 6D or the 5D3. I just don't know whether the 5D3 is going to be that much better than the 6D, I guess we will have to see.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > A question for the OP: Were the clients pictured in the examples you've posted happy with your work?
> ...



My point is a simple one: Between a panel of one's peers, or disinterested third persons and the people who are handing me the check, the opinions of the latter carry more weight.

Period.

I have seen far too many instances of "disinterested third persons" giving absolute garbage recommendations and critiques. Often times, I see such things coming from people who are simply pissed off that _they're _not getting hired to shoot weddings, or because they just enjoy stirring the pot.

Again, the bottom line is simple: If I have a picture, and you look at it and someone else looks at it, and they're willing to pay me for it and you're not, I'm not going to give your opinion even a passing consideration.

Photography is art, and art is subjective. Accordingly, I'll defer to the guy with the checkbook...


----------

