twoharts wrote:
so a "pro" will have to distinguish themselves through other means than camera technology. but maybe that has always been the case.

"pros" should upgrade their suits, shoes, watch as well as their ride

twoharts wrote:
here's a couple straight out of camera shots we posted last night before passing out:
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= … 723&type=1
(i can see i need to straighten that candle shot -- would have been hard to get that from the balcony i think)

It's been a while since I've been in a church but is that a large screen monitor in the lower left part of the frame? Do the Priests use that for reviewing Instant Replay?

PhotoByWayne wrote:

"pros" should upgrade their suits, shoes, watch as well as their ride

I'll amend that a bit.

"Individuals who are self-conscious about their penis size and photographic skills should compensate for that by spending more money on their equipment and vehicles."

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
It's been a while since I've been in a church but is that a large screen monitor in the lower left part of the frame? Do the Priests use that for reviewing Instant Replay?

MainePaintah wrote:

Photosbycj wrote:

. In addition to that, it's important that the photographer not become part of the ceremony. You should not be noticed. You're lucky the bride didn't come unglued with you sitting in the front row, or more likely the mother of the bride. Fine if you got permission first though.

I don't agree with this and it has never been true with any weddings I've shot a principle or secondary. Our job is to get the shot of the moment. During those situations I don't think you need to camp out in front row standing but you need to be up front on a knee grabbing that shot. If I shoot alone I'm front and center on a knee I grab what I need then move around to the back for different angles to tell the story".

+1 about being on a knee!

I briefly shot weddings in NYC when I was a photographer in the 1980's. I remember that the day following a wedding shoot, I could barely walk because I spent most of the wedding trying to be unobtrusive and shooting from being on one knee and scurrying around all day!

Im 6'4 so i'm always on a knee or bent over ... one day i want to shoot a NBA players wedding so i won't have to be the only tall guy in the room ... course this allows me to get the over the shoulder shots very easy lol.

Anthony J Deffina wrote:

Not trying to sound like an ass here but it doesn't sound like you should be shooting weddings on your own yet.

Things to consider:

1) No wedding photographer should be shooting without at at least one 2.8 or wider in their bag. As you've learned, ability to shoot in low light without a flash is a must.

2) Shooting from a balcony is common place, at least part of the time. Wide shots of the ceremony are very important. In addition to that, it's important that the photographer not become part of the ceremony. You should not be noticed. You're lucky the bride didn't come unglued with you sitting in the front row, or more likely the mother of the bride. Fine if you got permission first though.

3) You should also be sure to have two of everything with you. Don't know if you did or did not but always be sure to.

4) Camera capabilities will always get better, that's life. You will always run across someone with new or better. The two things you need to be concerned with are if you are equipped with what you need to get the job  done right and do you have a style that sets you apart from the crowd.

Let the shooter decide if he's ready or not. Everybodys got a learning curve, sometimes photographers come come off as arrogant as those useless Ph.D people , they think they are special and call themselves "doctors".  The op never asked anyone  if to critique whether he should shoot a wedding professionally.  keep your egos in check

Karl Johnston wrote:
the thing your team should be concerned about is the root of your team's concern..that's the real concern here, although, presents  entertainment for us

twoharts wrote:
i remember when guys were shooting weddings with the olympus E-1 (5 megapixels?)

I do..and I`ve used the Canon 1Dc as my second on more than a few as well..4MP. New gear is nice but never forget why you are are there..to capture moments these people can`t get back. If your pro...any camera can get the job done. Newer ones just have some bell and whistles that enhances what you already do. I break out my compact camera quite a bit during shoots to grab something that requires a different focal length than I`ve got on my primary cameras.

Personally I would focus more on composition, emotions and interaction. Never had a couple labour on what camera gear I use. Your portfolio and references should speak to what you are capable of delivering.

twoharts wrote:
shot a wedding last night and one of the guests noticed the wife's x-pro1 and showed off his new fuji x-e1 and then said his normal camera was a D-800 but he didn't feel like bringing that along. i asked him if he shot professionally and he said he did it just for fun. he didn't interfere or anything but it's hard to outgun the guests these days unless you have like  a D4. during the cake cutting there must have been 20 guests shooting although they did let me get my shots.

we did some shots with a Bel Air in the dark and the x-pro1 again outperformed my canon 5D MK II at ISO6400. and it's not even full-frame. fuji did something special in making that sensor.

just seems like within a few years if everyone is running around with X-E1 class cameras then they can get good shots in the dark, too. so a "pro" will have to distinguish themselves through other means than camera technology. but maybe that has always been the case.

To be blunt if a photographer is having this issue then I question the shooter's ability. There is always someone with a bigger bank account and with the latest in gear. So what? When I shot the NFL I shot against people with insane gear, or when I shoot news I go against news organizations I shoot against people with the latest hardware. So what. You think I can use that as an excuse with an editor or client as to why I didn't get a shot. Your client is hiring what you bring as skills, style and ability behind the camera. Otherwise they could just rent a camera and toss it to the drunk at the party. Suck it up work harder. I have a very simple rule I don't get out shot.


ExtremeDay147010909 by FullMetalPhotographer, on Flickr


BudgetVeto11091708 by FullMetalPhotographer, on Flickr



gear by FullMetalPhotographer, on Flickr

My gear may not be the newest but is solid and reliable. But it my skills that set me apart from the others.

the lonely photographer wrote:
Let the shooter decide if he's ready or not.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
My gear may not be the newest but is solid and reliable. But it my skills that set me apart from the others.

twoharts wrote:
this was a nice church. the guy's dressing area had a pool table, a ping pong table plus a PS3 and a dart board and a kitchen area.

Wow. They'd have to drag me out of there kicking and screaming...literally. "Just let me get to the next level!"

twoharts wrote:
happy to be sunday morning entertainment :-;

i wasn't threatened by this particular guy (although i have felt a bit threatened on other weddings but as i do more it gets to be less of an issue), just got to wondering between guys like him, cameras like the fuji and the 20 guests shooting every moment at the reception why they even needed us. it was more thinking about the prospect of even being able to book weddings a few years out, although we've already got two brides wanting us for 2014.

Irregardless of what people say about equipment,   the truth is   equipment does matter. I shot a red carpet event with a Canon T2i, great camera but way too slow, I needed a camera that could keep up. I added a speedlite,   still a bit slow, I added a Bat pac to the speedlite to recycle faster
I started to shoot pageants,  needed a camera with better focusing  went to a 7D  added 3 canon 600 ex-rt's  for remote shooting  for the girls on stage. Looking at a 1DX  for better low light  and faster more accurate focusing.. the point is, the more you get involved with your work, the more you need more equipment capablity. If  nobody complains about the quality of your work and you don't curse your equipment because it can't do what you want at a critical time,    don't worry about it

the lonely photographer wrote:
If  nobody complains about the quality of your work and you don't curse your equipment because it can't do what you want at a critical time,    don't worry about it

the lonely photographer wrote:

Irregardless of what people say about equipment,   the truth is   equipment does matter. I shot a red carpet event with a Canon T2i, great camera but way too slow, I needed a camera that could keep up. I added a speedlite,   still a bit slow, I added a Bat pac to the speedlite to recycle faster
I started to shoot pageants,  needed a camera with better focusing  went to a 7D  added 3 canon 600 ex-rt's  for remote shooting  for the girls on stage. Looking at a 1DX  for better low light  and faster more accurate focusing.. the point is, the more you get involved with your work, the more you need more equipment capablity. If  nobody complains about the quality of your work and you don't curse your equipment because it can't do what you want at a critical time,    don't worry about it

So what were photographers shooting red carpet events with before the 7D and newer...

Nobody is saying gear isn`t important. If that was all that mattered, the professional photographer would be extinct.

twoharts wrote:
shot a wedding last night and one of the guests noticed the wife's x-pro1 and showed off his new fuji x-e1 and then said his normal camera was a D-800 but he didn't feel like bringing that along. i asked him if he shot professionally and he said he did it just for fun. he didn't interfere or anything but it's hard to outgun the guests these days unless you have like  a D4. during the cake cutting there must have been 20 guests shooting although they did let me get my shots.

we did some shots with a Bel Air in the dark and the x-pro1 again outperformed my canon 5D MK II at ISO6400. and it's not even full-frame. fuji did something special in making that sensor.

just seems like within a few years if everyone is running around with X-E1 class cameras then they can get good shots in the dark, too. so a "pro" will have to distinguish themselves through other means than camera technology. but maybe that has always been the case.

I have a pipe wrench under my sink. Doesn't make me a plumber...

twoharts wrote:
so maybe our role isn't necessarily to get better images than the guests but rather to deliver comprehensive coverage in a timely manner.

I think the coverage, and telling a complete story, is the key difference. 

I've only assisted for two weddings and shot one small one myself, but making sure to get all the different coverage required constant work.  It's not the "quality" of any given image, but all of them together that make them special.

Maybe if every guest had a camera and by chance got the equivalent coverage, the couple would end up with the complete story, but it probably wouldn't be timely or well organized or easy to assemble.

Luminos wrote:
Works both ways.   I showed up with my D300S at a recent reception at the request of the bride.   Then had a 23 year old secretary with a digital point-and-shoot get better shots of the cake cutting when the batteries in my SB-800 failed.

Tim Roper wrote:
Maybe if every guest had a camera and by chance got the equivalent coverage, the couple would end up with the complete story, but it probably wouldn't be timely or well organized or easy to assemble.

Sekkides wrote:
I have a pipe wrench under my sink. Doesn't make me a plumber...

twoharts wrote:
i shot my first wedding never having done one and never having even wanted to do one and never having assisted at one nor had i been to one in ages. absolutely the wrong way to get started i know but one of our boudoir clients was on the heavier side and felt we were respectful about that and got good pictures of her so she asked us to shoot her wedding (she knew we have never done one). fortunately i had done a lot of model and for-pay shoots so i knew my camera and had decent gear. plus i hired a 2nd who is one of the best wedding photographers i've ever seen (way better than me).

i think it's good to be challenged sometimes. you really need to bring your A game to these events, especially if you want to start charging lots of money for them. there's a lot involved and a lot at stake (although with 20 guests shooting everything i don't feel as much pressure. lol)

i'm a lazy studio guy shooting weddings. it is what it is.

[quotethe lonely photographer] Let the shooter decide if he's ready or not.

Thanks for sharing on a model site.

Yan Tan Tethera wrote:
Thanks for sharing on a model site.

twoharts wrote:
the 16-35 is like $1,500 (plus people never seem to say anything good about it) so i'm torn between getting that or putting the money into a newer body where maybe my 17-40 will suffice.

can you get the selected focus point to light up red with the MK III? i've seen posts saying that's a showstopper flaw for low light shooting.

in this case the uncle bob had a suggestion for re-orienting the rings for better composition and his suggestion was good so we went with it. i guess you just try to work with these folks rather than against them (unless they are gunning for you).

They do light up but not until focus is reached. Come to think of it it would be kind of nice to have  slight glow to it so you could see it well in low light. The adjustment button is right there by your thumb though and it's easy enought to hit and see where you've set the focus.

I have the 16-35 L and I like it. I don't know that I'd say it's any kind of miracle though. I usually vote for putting money to better glass but I can make a good argument for getting the 5DIII and would go that way in my case because I came from a 5D. I skipped the 5DII. I have heard some say that it's not worth the money to upgrade from the 5DII but I don't know how much low light photography they're doing. To me, that's always been a weak point for Canon and now no longer is. I need good low light focus not just because of weddings ( Although most importantly) but also because much of what I shoot other than weddings is done in low light. So it's huge for me on all levels.

Yes, you never who you'll something valuable from. Keeping a cool head and being polite can certainly pay off!

the lonely photographer wrote:

Let the shooter decide if he's ready or not. Everybodys got a learning curve, sometimes photographers come come off as arrogant as those useless Ph.D people , they think they are special and call themselves "doctors".  The op never asked anyone  if to critique whether he should shoot a wedding professionally.  keep your egos in check

My comment had nothing to do with ego.

Anthony J Deffina wrote:
My comment had nothing to do with ego.

Photosbycj wrote:
Wedding guest crack me up at times. I had one bust out a D4 on me and tried talking up his gear over mine while in front of the bride and groom. He was an uncle through marriage to the groom so I played nice with him even after he kept claiming how crappy the shots from my D700 would be. He even went as far as telling the brides mom not to buy an album because he would give them one free (from his amazing camera) as a wedding gift.

During our print order consultation they brought in the "wedding album" he gave them. Now I do not talk bad of anyone's work ... ever. I won't start today but I will say that thanks to his album I sold three of my own that day lol.

Ultimately, you are the one that got hired to deliver a package.
I wouldn't have minded his annoying behavior, unless the album sale was optional, or he was interfering with you doing your job correctly

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

I'll amend that a bit.

"Individuals who are self-conscious about their penis size and photographic skills should compensate for that by spending more money on their equipment and vehicles."

You kill me, Michael.

MnPhoto wrote:
Remember that the photographer "makes" the shot. The wedding photographer compiles the album.

MnPhoto wrote:
You kill me, Michael.

Sichenze Photography wrote:
It is a 12 hour day or more with the bride getting ready then going to the church then the church and after the ceremony pictures and then the reception.  Starts at 10 am or earlier and goes to midnight.

twoharts wrote:
your comment about f2.8 was spot on. sometimes i find even f2.8 is too slow but i like doing some wide shots so if i just run around with my 50f1.4 i miss out (or i have to carry two bodies but my 2nd body isn't that great in low light). but really i'd be happy just using my f4 zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) if i had a body that could keep up with them. that and my 15mm fisheye. the fisheye look seems to be popular for weddings these days.

at this wedding i used my 24-105 for the ceremony because i didn't bring my 70-200f2.8 and thought the 24-70f2.8 and 50f1.4 would be too short. and i thought the 100f2 wouldn't be flexible enough.

you make so many decisions at weddings on-the-fly and the wrong decision (or not having the right gear for the conditions) can be costly. even scouting the venue isn't foolproof because the lighting conditions may be different on the actual day. even if you scout at the same time as the ceremony the amount of light outside can vary if it's a daytime shoot (i saw a one stop difference for the worse at one i did). and sometimes they mess with the lights and have them at different power for the real thing.

Ha,yep! You can count on two things only...

1) Nothing will go as planned.

2) It's never boring!

Anthony J Deffina wrote:
Ha,yep! You can count on two things only...

1) Nothing will go as planned.

2) It's never boring!

MnPhoto wrote:
The goal is not for you to always have the latest equipment, but to establish yourself as someone that shoots weddings beautifully.

Having the itinerary available and the experience to pose and/or compose your in an appealing way will beat any guest photography any day.