Moonlighting as a wedding photographer realistic?

[JIP]

I do not think it is necesarry to shell out millions of dollars on equipment to be a good photographer wedding or otherwise so I am not complaining about the gear I personally purchased my original comment was to try and walk before you run by trying to assist or shoot for a lower cost studio and get some experience before you go out and charge someone $1200 to shoot their wedding and also to consider buying a Nikon or Canon system if he was going to go further with wedding photography. I really do not consider that sour grapes I simply wanted to give some idea of some steps to take before going right into it. I say if you can get someone to pay yo $1200 or more to shoot their wedding and do a good job of it with your Pentax more power to you good luck and welcome to it I was just adding my point of view.

 

[Big Mike]

and also to consider buying a Nikon or Canon system if he was going to go further with wedding photography

While I can see where you are coming from, with your other points...I can't fathom why this would make a difference. :scratch:

 

[JIP]

It really was just a suggestion I did not want it to turn into some big thing. I personally think if someone, and this is just responding to big Mike is going to get into shooting weddings professionally they should get into one of what are considered the 2 better systems for Dslr's again this was just a suggestion given to someone who was asking for some advice on starting to shoot weddings.

 

[BAB]

It really was just a suggestion I did not want it to turn into some big thing. I personally think if someone, and this is just responding to big Mike is going to get into shooting weddings professionally they should get into one of what are considered the 2 better systems for Dslr's again this was just a suggestion given to someone who was asking for some advice on starting to shoot weddings.

I believe your point is a valid one purely from a PR/marketing perspective and I believe that is where you were going with your reply. Whether Canon & Nikon are the "two best" is contoversial, subjective and probably incorrect because as we all know, a lot has to do with the talent and ability of the photographer and other systems can do quite well in the right hands. The fact is that to the lay person whether right or wrong, Canon and Nikon are generally recognized as "professional equipment", and while it may not be true of all wedding couples, a certain expectation often comes when they write that check for $1,200 or whatever, that they are hiring a pro and sad as it may be, image often does matter. When discussing a wedding to a couple of prospective couple's, I have been asked what kind of camera do you use? Obviously, right or wrong, in these cases brand meant something to the customers that asked.

 

[JIP]

Thank you you said it a little better than I could in genera if you make a good impression like it or not they will like the end result better.

 

[Big Mike]

I personally think if someone, and this is just responding to big Mike is going to get into shooting weddings professionally they should get into one of what are considered the 2 better systems for Dslr's

I would probably have suggested the same thing...but the original poster started with "I've just gotten my first digital SLR"...so after that...brand really should have anything to do with it.

The fact is that to the lay person whether right or wrong, Canon and Nikon are generally recognized as "professional equipment", and while it may not be true of all wedding couples, a certain expectation often comes when they write that check for $1,200 or whatever, that they are hiring a pro and sad as it may be, image often does matter. When discussing a wedding to a couple of prospective couple's, I have been asked what kind of camera do you use? Obviously, right or wrong, in these cases brand meant something to the customers that asked.

I do see the point here...but I think it's just such a small thing. When meeting with a potential client...I would think that wearing a tie or how your breath smells...will be more important that the brand of your gear.

I have heard of clients who ask about what camera you use...and for the most part, telling them it's an DSLR or SLR would be enough to impress them. The ones that would prefer Nikon or Canon may be at that dangerous stage of knowledge...they know something...but not enough to really understand. Would they prefer if you were shooting with a Canon Digital Rebel or a Pentax K10D? If they really knew...they might be impressed if you were shooting with a Hasselblad.

I didn't mean to keep dragging this out...I think we are all on the same page here. I'm just not a fan of bringing up brand preference when someone already has made that choice.

 

[Jeepnut28]

Who said you had to do it for free? A lot of them around here will pay a second shooter up to $200.00, sometimes more. In some ways that is a better deal.

It gets all the liability off of your back, you hand the files over at the end of the day and you are done with it, You don't have to worry about the cost that go with marketing, you don't have to haggle with potential clients over the price (and trust me, no matter how little you charge you will have to) I could go on and on.

......and you dont get to benefit from the profit for a hard day of work. someone else does.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Hehehe, we will see how it goes. If I find myself losing potential customers because I reply "Pentax" instead of "Nikon", I will reconsider. Now that the subject has been brought up, I will consider my reply, should I ever be asked that question. I think think I will reply "My primary camera is a Pentax K100D. Are you familiar with it? It is quite nice." (brings camera out) and judge their expression. If the expression goes sour, I will say: "Would you like to see some of the photos it has captured for me?" If they suggest that Canon or Nikon is better, I can always explain that Canon & Nikon both make some unsuitable cameras in additio nto their pro level stuff, and that the brand name is not what provides the results.

If the couple is so closed-minded/ignorant about a camera brand, I probably do not want them as a client anyhow. That would be the kind of couple that would try to sue me for not getting a perfect shot of grandma.

Honestly, I appreciate every viewpoint. Some are more optimistic than others, but each reply will prepare me for a different scenario/question.

Right now, I am having a hard time getting the photos together for my portfolio & website. The first wedding I shot was of my friends wedding. The woman is currently looking for the negatives. The second one I shot was my sister's. She has divorced her first husband and is dating another guy. Things are looking up for them, but I'm not at all sure she saved the photos or negs from her wedding.

My wife actually mentioned the idea of renting a wedding dress and posing for some photos for me to use for promotional purposes. Kind of a variant of Big Mike's idea. I may try one of those two ideas. I will see what I come up with from the two weddings I've shot. I do have a few months before it is the right weather for that kind of thing.

I have another idea to help me get going without first having to be someone's little assistant. (that would be a last resort for me. I'm already a good enough people photographer that I would resent it, I'm afraid)

I thought I would offer an Engagement Photo Package that would be separate from the wedding package. It would cost quite a bit less, and the couple could get to know me and see my work of THEM, first-hand. They would then be comfortable either contracting with me for my services or continuing their search.

 

[Jeremy Z]

......and you dont get to benefit from the profit for a hard day of work. someone else does.

Nevertheless, it is worth considering. 200 bucks would cover gas & expenses, and probably $15 an hour. It beats a sharp stick in the eye, right?

If I try with all my means to strike out on my own and fail, I will tuck my tail between my legs and consider it a bit further. :mrgreen:

 

[JIP]

The whole idea of doing a wedding for someone else or assisting someone on the cheap is to learn I understand you say you are a good people photographer that is not all shooting a wedding is. When you shoot a wedding for a friend or a relative for free or cheap you are part of the fun there is no pressure the whole wedding does not ride on you. Shooting a wedding is alot of pressure and stress and as good as you may say you are it is alot to just go out there and just start. If you can do it I say more power to you but saying you would resent assisting someone just doesn't make any sense even longtime professionals can learn something by following other photpgraphers around for a wedding or 2. Who do you think goes to all these seminars all the time surely not all of them are just first time photographers.

 

[markc]

The whole idea of doing a wedding for someone else or assisting someone on the cheap is to learn I understand you say you are a good people photographer that is not all shooting a wedding is. When you shoot a wedding for a friend or a relative for free or cheap you are part of the fun there is no pressure the whole wedding does not ride on you. Shooting a wedding is alot of pressure and stress and as good as you may say you are it is alot to just go out there and just start. If you can do it I say more power to you but saying you would resent assisting someone just doesn't make any sense even longtime professionals can learn something by following other photpgraphers around for a wedding or 2. Who do you think goes to all these seminars all the time surely not all of them are just first time photographers.

I completely agree with that. I don't think there's anything demeaning about being an assistant. I did a couple of weddings where I mostly walked around with the flash for the photographer and didn't take many of my own, but I'm really glad I did it. It's a good low-pressure way to get started and gives you a great vantage point for seeing how other people do it.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Well fellas, I've finally found some of my wedding photos, and a bride is going to bring me the negs.

I'm sad to say that they are not quite as good as I remembered. Most people would be happy with them as wedding photos, but they're not quite up to my standards now that I've been here bit. Specifically, the indoor flash photojournalist-style pix have the subject exposed correctly, but with pitch black background. The outdoor ones were very good though, and my candids were also good. (again, except for the black backgrounds)

My only worry about that now is this: If I call some photographers and offer to be a second shooter, would they be happy to have cheap assistance or would they say no because they don't want to help out any prospective competition?

To you wedding photographers here, how would YOU react if someone in your area wanted to shadow you, and you knew he would become competition some day? I know I'd have to think about it if I were the pro...

 

[markc]

You are going to get a varied response as much as people are varied. I think if it's something you want to try, that you'll just have to put yourself out there and see what happens. I've found that networking really helps here. I've met some great people at the local photo club, community darkroom, and gallery openings. People tend to be more comfortable dealing with someone they know, and it's a great way to get to know people. Some people are closed-lipped, but most of the photographers I've met have been happy to share their knowledge.

 

[JIP]

I know when I first started but that was as a main shooter for a lower-end studio I was given initial training and sent out to shoot I was given weddings weekly as part of the deal I had to sign a contract that I would not shoot any weddings on my own for a given pieriod of time, I think it was a year this was hard but I learned alot and had his backing if I made any mistakes. In general if you are going to work for someone they should have no problem teaching you I guess it depends on who you go to but as you can see on here most potographers are happy to share their knowledge and of course you will be helping them either carrying bags and herding people around to pose for group shots or just shooting as a second shooter. As well as all this I think training new people rather than them just starting out on their own improves the quality of photographers in their community so it helps everyone.

 

[ksmattfish]

I'm a one person operation most of the time. I have a couple of photographer friends who I occasionally call upon when I need help. One is a professional photog, but makes his money from from landscapes and architecture, not people. The other is a long time amateur/semi-pro who has a real job, and isn't planning on leaving it. I love hiring these guys because I know they know what they are doing, and they'll probably never be my competition.

If I was hiring an assistant for wedding photography I'd just assume they were doing it because they wanted to do it for a business at some point. I live in a college town, so my strategy would be to hire a college student who'd be moving away in 4 years to be somebody else's competition.

I'd expect them to have the technical aspects of running the camera and the flash pretty well figured out. I don't mind teaching someone how I go about a wedding shoot, but they should have the fundamental photography skills mastered. They need to be able to run the camera and the flash in manual, and get consistantly good exposures. At least good enough for print film or raw files.

Being a wedding assistant isn't even half taking photographs, mostly it's hauling gear, setting up gear, taking down gear, holding gear, and guarding gear. I need to be able to tell them how I want cameras or lighting set up, and they get it the first time. Most of the training is going to be on the job, in front of the client; it doesn't look good to have to explain something more than once, and we just don't have time.

Skills in customer service, retail sales, or working with the public would be a bonus.

I'd want to see a portfolio of at least 12 prints, mostly with people as subjects. This is going to determine who I'd hire. Obviously they need to be an asset to my business, and create photos that please the client. I wouldn't mind so much that they will be potential competition someday, because if they have the skills and the eyes, it would seem to be inevitable with or without my help.