Wedding photos

danalec99 · Feb 23, 2005

GARRETTgalbreath said:
But on some of the pages I've read about wedding photography, a lot of the photographers use ISO1600 (which is double what my camera will allow). I was under the assumption lower ISO's make the image darker, but clearer. Can someone clarify this for me?

I know a handful of photogs who regularly shoot at 1600 or 1000 ISO. But they all have the high end digital SLRs. Those kind of cameras handles noise (grain) very well. The grain would be very minimal. And if they wanted to clean it, there are softwares like Noise Ninja, Neat Image etc to do that job.

People usually use such high ISO's in low-light situations to get blur-free images without the help of a flash. But there are times when flash is needed and therefore an important accessory in a wedding photog's tool kit.

Kodan_Txips · Feb 23, 2005

IN my opinion, for REALLY using digital cameras to get the hang of lots of different aspects of photography, you can't beat those non-interchangeable near-SLR long zoom cameras.

Something with 5 - 7 Megapixies, and a zoom of 10-12 x.

I have 10 times zoom on my Dimage Z1, but only 3 Mp, but that still does well enough for 10 x 8 prints, which is all my printer can do anyway. But 5 or 6Mp would be nice...

Kodak, Minolta, Fuji, they all do decent cameras for an affordable price, and there are so many different setting there must be 1000s of different ways to take a bad photo! (joking).

But I still love my recently bought film SLRs. They cost 45 and about 100 dollars respectively, give fantastic results, the 100 dollars got me 2 zoom lenses and a flash also, and I feel like a real photographer!

Good cheap option, and with process paid slide film you can buy film when you are rich, and not worry about the future costs.

Big Mike · Feb 23, 2005

Kodan_Txips said:
IN my opinion, for REALLY using digital cameras to get the hang of lots of different aspects of photography, you can't beat those non-interchangeable near-SLR long zoom cameras.

Something with 5 - 7 Megapixies, and a zoom of 10-12 x.

What I don't like about these cameras is that they have very small sensors compared to a DSLR. Otherwise they have pretty good glass and great features...but if you are going to spend $500-$800...on one of these...why not just spend a little more and get a true DSLR? You get 10 times the camera for less than double the price.

rangefinder · Feb 23, 2005

I joined the camera club when a high school junior in 1965/66. I was also the assistant to the photographer who had the school contract. In June 1966 I went out on a wedding as a bag boy. Before the summer was through I was the assistant/backup camera. In 1971 I shot my first wedding on my own for a navy buddy who was getting married and like all of us new to the navy was broke. I had a Braun 510 strobe and borrowed $80 from my dad to buy a Yashica Mat 124.

I did a pretty good job and got better over the years.

Speaking from my experience, I would not attempt a wedding, large or small, with zero experience. If you are planning on getting into the business you'll find there is a truism - get one UNsatisfised customer and you need TEN satisfied customers to make up for it.

The camera you posted is not up to the job. No matter how nice this person is, IF your wedding pictures don't meet the standard of your nature pictures then you got trouble. You run a serious risk of disappointing her (not the style she wants, not the poses she wants, missing other poses) on her wedding day (something to be remembered and CHERISHED forever) and you'll disappoint yourself.

Get a part time job as a bag boy/assistant and learn it the right way. There are a lot of different styles of wedding photography. There is a lot of the unexpected and you have to be sharp on your toes to handle same. And that takes experience.

Contra|Brett| · Feb 23, 2005

Big Mike said:
What I don't like about these cameras is that they have very small sensors compared to a DSLR. Otherwise they have pretty good glass and great features...but if you are going to spend $500-$800...on one of these...why not just spend a little more and get a true DSLR? You get 10 times the camera for less than double the price.

I second this

ksmattfish · Feb 23, 2005

While I would agree with most of what folks are saying here 9 times out of 10, I think this is the rare exception to the rule. The wedding is 25 days away, and the bride doesn't have a photographer?!? She's asking a student who shoots mostly natural scenes and architecture (and has been photographing for 2 weeks) to come shoot portraits and documentary at the most important day of her life? You've explained to her that you don't have pro equipment or experience? She is either not particularly concerned with the photography, or she's insane.

Either she saw something in your work that just connected with her, or she wants a dirt cheap photographer. Maybe a little of both. If you are completely honest with her (experience, equipment, etc...), and she still wants you to do it, and you're fairly sure she's not insane, I say go for it. You're not a pro, so I can't imagine that you could charge what the pros are getting, but you still need to make it worth your while. Everyone has to start somewhere.

loopy · Feb 23, 2005

I'm going to agree with ksmattfish.

I did my first and only wedding a couple summers ago. It was for my best friend's sister, so she was fully aware that I had no wedding experience. Its stressful, I shot everything from the ceremony to the standard shots to the afterparty. I got some beautiful shots, and they were happy with the images I produced.

...but it was stressful. The last thing I wanted to do was to screw up someones wedding pictures. I've had offers since then, but I've turned them down.

fadingaway1986 · Feb 24, 2005

ksmattfish - thats a very good point. I never looked at it like that... In that case, I would probably say go for it. BUT - make sure you sign an agreement that CLEARLY states you are NOT a professional photographer and have had NO WEDDING EXPERIENCE. (and yeah - I would put that in capitals.)... And make her sign it...

Good Luck

(btw - my aunty is considering me doing her wedding photography next year in january - but I'll think I'll take on everyone else's advice and go as a "backup" or 2nd photographer.. to give me experience!)

Rob · Feb 24, 2005

ksmattfish said:
She is either not particularly concerned with the photography, or she's insane.

Whilst I agree with Matt, most people don't know the difference between a good and an amateur photographer.

You're going to be beaten with the mother-in-law's walking stick if there's any kind of mistake - just bear that in mind.

Good luck - you are really really going to need it.

Rob

Jess · Feb 25, 2005

WSP said:
If you'd like to take a look at the wedding contract I use, as well as a suggested photo list, take a look at www.whitesharkphoto.com/forms.htm .

This may be an odd question... Have you done any same-sex ceremonies and do you alter the form (shot list) & how? I suppose if they were good natured they'd just indicate which is which for you... Sally's the groom, Barbara the Bride

GARRETTgalbreath · Mar 25, 2005

Well.... I did the wedding tonight.. Just got home actually..

I got a Digital Rebel XT and used standard flash, standard lens and a 75-300mm USM lens.. After trying to get used to that crazy zoom of the 75-300, I see a nice tripod in my near future. I'll post up a few pics when I go through them all throughout the week.. Got over 600 shots and I'm kind of intimidated

Contra|Brett| · Mar 28, 2005

well... alot of people here know how i feel about the xt, but that being beside the point. I'm glad you realize that a NICE TRIPOD is important. May I be so bold as to suggest:

manfrotto 3001 Pro, (legs about $129)

and a:

488RCO (it's a ball head w/ the manfrotto RCO quick disconnect about $109)

btw, the 488 replaced the "3055 heavy duty ball head"

the 3021 extends to about 6.5 feet, if you want something taller than the 3001.