Sister wants me to shoot her wedding (someone talk me out of this)

momo3boys · May 1, 2012

So what happened? Did you shoot the wedding? How did it go?

DiskoJoe · May 1, 2012

I had forgot all about this. Now I'm wondering how it played out for him .

Mike_E · May 1, 2012

Curious myself.

If I were stuck in the same situation, I'd hire a pair of experienced second shooters and just manage the thing.

Having fast glass is nice for a one time thing but not needful, a monopod is almost as good. Off camera lighting is a must for the formals but you can go strobist if you aren't getting paid without troubling your conscious a bit.

Learning a new camera right before a wedding is like operating on yourself and only reading about it the night before.

Learning the required poses, standard shots and time management are the most important things for someone who is already fairly skilled as a photog, as well as learning to not freak-out and generally letting go of any mistakes as soon as you make them (learn from them- yes, spend time beating yourself up for them- no).

PapaMatt · May 1, 2012

If you like your sister and want to keep her as your sister and best friend, have a pro do the photos and you could always be a back up photographer.

Well, that was dumb on my part, I am late as always :lmao:

Wonder what happened????

Designer · May 1, 2012

Your first mistake was to tell her "yes". Undo that.

Your gift might be to at least help with the cost of a pro if you cannot afford to pay the entire fee.

Considering that she is family, I recommend that you do not even try to shoot "second camera". If you take your camera, just try to get snaps of family and friends.

2WheelPhoto · May 1, 2012

Designer said:
Your first mistake was to tell her "yes". Undo that.

Your gift might be to at least help with the cost of a pro if you cannot afford to pay the entire fee.

Considering that she is family, I recommend that you do not even try to shoot "second camera". If you take your camera, just try to get snaps of family and friends.

Do you see how old this thread is... you're giving advice while the rest of us are commenting we wonder what happened =)

mxblitz · Aug 17, 2012

Sorry I meant to come back and give you guys an update on what happened. I finally talked them into hiring someone. All the pictures the pro took turned out pretty good except the formals which really weren't that bad, the lighting was just way too harsh.
I took some pictures along side the pro and mine were comparable (better in many cases).

Where they really got their moneys worth was she actually knew what she was doing (what pictures to take, how to pose people, etc). I was pretty clueless in that regard. So I'm glad they hired her although she did take 2+ months to get the pictures back to them and she didn't spend near the time that I did in post processing (my sister had a small bruise on her arm that I fixed among other things).

MLeeK · Aug 17, 2012

Glad to hear that it went well and they hired a pro who let you shoot along side. 2+ months is really not bad if you are working with someone who shoots a lot of weddings at that time. Each wedding is 40+ hours of processing, so in order to get that in and others? It takes a while. It's frustrating, but really not unreasonable!

nonamexx · Mar 28, 2013

I'm surprised at how you westerners place so much worry on the photography part and how you even consider amateur photography in weddings. And also worry so much about the venue lighting. It's all a bit of a surprise to me as I've never seen a Christian (or Western style) wedding before.

We in India don't even think about not hiring a professional. We hire professionals anyway as a matter of routine as part of the wedding cost. Indian weddings, depending on which part of India you come from are long, arduous affairs and take a long time to complete making it physically impossible for an amateur, let alone a family member to cover individually. There are three or four separate ceremonies and usually in the beginning a separate ceremony for bride and groom. Then the professionals bring their own lighting equipment and videographer too. The emphasis is on event coverage and not candids. The lighting is usually bright and the venue is full of people in colourful clothing (especially ladies, in silk sarees).

I was recently married. One thing I know is that most professional wedding photographers in India do not (or rarely) shoot RAW. They have to take around 800-900 pictures from which the client chooses 200-300 for the album and processing RAW would probably take ages. The stress is on quick delivery. Also the emphasis is on formal coverage of the ceremony, group shots, the family members and the attendees, not the bride and groom although that is also covered. Artistry and creative expression are not important and should be avoided in traditional Indian weddings. Bride and groom and not going to indulge in intimate moments and will usually be formal and stiff most of the time. Also using shallow DOF for portraits in weddings is a recipe for disaster because people and family members love to appear in photos even in the background and then discussing with family members over the album and blurring the background will remove this.

I think it would be impossible to do wedding photography in India as an individual. You need a team, and for larger weddings even two photographers apart from the videographer and lighting set up to match. Usually the wedding hall manager or event manager has a tie up with a photographer to organize this.

Ballistics · Mar 28, 2013

harishankar said:
I'm surprised at how you westerners place so much worry on the photography part and how you even consider amateur photography in weddings. And also worry so much about the venue lighting. It's all a bit of a surprise to me as I've never seen a Christian (or Western style) wedding before.

We in India don't even think about not hiring a professional. We hire professionals anyway as a matter of routine as part of the wedding cost. Indian weddings, depending on which part of India you come from are long, arduous affairs and take a long time to complete making it physically impossible for an amateur, let alone a family member to cover individually. There are three or four separate ceremonies and usually in the beginning a separate ceremony for bride and groom. Then the professionals bring their own lighting equipment and videographer too. The emphasis is on event coverage and not candids. The lighting is usually bright and the venue is full of people in colourful clothing (especially ladies, in silk sarees).

One thing I know is that most professional wedding photographers in India do not (or rarely) shoot RAW. They have to take around 800-900 pictures from which the client chooses 200-300 for the album and processing RAW would probably take ages. The stress is on quick delivery. Also the emphasis is on formal coverage of the ceremony, group shots, the family members and the attendees, not the bride and groom although that is also covered.

I think it would be impossible to do wedding photography in India as an individual. You need a team, and for larger weddings even two photographers apart from the videographer and lighting set up to match. Usually the wedding hall manager or event manager has a tie up with a photographer to organize this.

You're surprised that photographers, in a photography forum place worry on the photography part in a wedding? :lol:

Post is also a year old.

Ballistics · Mar 28, 2013

harishankar said:
I'm surprised at how you westerners place so much worry on the photography part and how you even consider amateur photography in weddings. And also worry so much about the venue lighting. It's all a bit of a surprise to me as I've never seen a Christian (or Western style) wedding before.

We in India don't even think about not hiring a professional. We hire professionals anyway as a matter of routine as part of the wedding cost. Indian weddings, depending on which part of India you come from are long, arduous affairs and take a long time to complete making it physically impossible for an amateur, let alone a family member to cover individually. There are three or four separate ceremonies and usually in the beginning a separate ceremony for bride and groom. Then the professionals bring their own lighting equipment and videographer too. The emphasis is on event coverage and not candids. The lighting is usually bright and the venue is full of people in colourful clothing (especially ladies, in silk sarees).

One thing I know is that most professional wedding photographers in India do not (or rarely) shoot RAW. They have to take around 800-900 pictures from which the client chooses 200-300 for the album and processing RAW would probably take ages. The stress is on quick delivery. Also the emphasis is on formal coverage of the ceremony, group shots, the family members and the attendees, not the bride and groom although that is also covered.

I think it would be impossible to do wedding photography in India as an individual. You need a team, and for larger weddings even two photographers apart from the videographer and lighting set up to match. Usually the wedding hall manager or event manager has a tie up with a photographer to organize this.

You're surprised that photographers, in a photography forum place worry on the photography part in a wedding? :lol:

You need a team, and for larger weddings even two photographers apart from the videographer and lighting set up to match.

Which is exactly what takes place in the majority of large weddings.

Post is also a year old.

nonamexx · Mar 28, 2013

The reason I am surprised at individuals especially amateurs undertaking primary wedding photography is because where I live you need a team of professionals to cover weddings. At least 3 people if not more.

Ballistics · Mar 28, 2013

harishankar said:
The reason I am surprised at individuals especially amateurs undertaking primary wedding photography is because where I live you need a team of professionals to cover weddings. At least 3 people if not more.

3 people do cover weddings. It's common for 2 photographers and a videographer to cover a wedding.

nonamexx · Mar 28, 2013

Thanks for clearing that up. I would always only shoot as amateur as a second photographer. The reason I looked at this thread is because I want to take photos in my brother's wedding when it is fixed, but I would do it purely as an amateur, taking only shots which I like and generally taking it easy.