Wedding Photography Banter Thread

[Antony]

Originally Posted by isaaus

Time limits suck, Put a time limit for an hindu/sikh wedding and business will go down the drain in few weeks. Majority of the time (READ: ALL THE TIME) bride is never ready on time, no one arrives at temple on time, literally everything is atleast 1hr late, If I walk away on time, I will have shots of food being prepared and mandaps being setup, nothing with bride and groom in it

Hi guys, one of my first posts here so hello!

Our base package includes 4 hours of photography, and the number of included hours rises with the package value. Personally I think it works great for me, our average wedding is between 7 and 8 hours of coverage and we effectively get paid for the additional hours.

All day coverage is great, but I am 44 and it's a hard grind to work for 12-14 hours. Add to that the fact that I spend an hour doing RAWs for every hour shooting, and it's a lot of work. If clients want that, I want them booking more than my bottom package.

We work with the client to get an arrangement that works for them. I don't believe we've lost a wedding based upon our coverage structure, and I think that if this was an important issue for my clients I would be getting that feedback.

Cheers, Antony

[sejanus]

Originally Posted by Arch-Angel

Yep, sure do.



Never said anything about screaming in horror, I said comfortable.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe you and I have very different shooting styles. That's ok isn't it?
It's always hard to not get the couples attention when you bring a lens to bear on them but, generally, I'll try to do everything I can to minimise any negative impact I have on them.

Oh and I did say it was one of the reasons... If I'm honest, the 50/1.2 I had used to hunt for focus a lot more than the 1.4 I have, and at 1.8 and above I can't tell the two apart in terms of IQ.



Like your photo (I'm sure if I had 200/2 or 300/2.8 I'd use them more for weddings too), but disagree with your statement above.
For my own wedding I chose a photographer with creative flair and an eye for details - not the one with the biggest lenses

it's nothing to do with shooting styles. it is ABSURD to think that people will be more distracted by the physical size of a 50/1.2 versus a 1.4 or 1.8 lens. I mean really - thats seriously one of the weirder things I've ever heard.

I've had several 50mm 1.2's and a the 1.4 and 1.8 as well. In my experience the 1.8 and 1.4 are just as sharp, but the 1.2 has better colour/contrast and better background blur. The 1.2 is just a killer lens for indoor modelling work.

[Arch-Angel]

Originally Posted by sejanus

it's nothing to do with shooting styles. it is ABSURD to think that people will be more distracted by the physical size of a 50/1.2 versus a 1.4 or 1.8 lens. I mean really - thats seriously one of the weirder things I've ever heard.

No worries man, you win.

[sejanus]

lol, not about winning. but if you think a lens that is 15mm longer in length is a issue for people, well lets just say you are analyzing things a whole lot more than I do

[Arch-Angel]

Originally Posted by sejanus

lol, not about winning. but if you think a lens that is 15mm longer in length is a issue for people, well lets just say you are analyzing things a whole lot more than I do

Quite probably, and I admit I have a tendency to do that... but the simple fact is that it works for me and, more importantly, for my clients.

[Arch-Angel]

*cough*bump*cough*

Again, thread needs moar pics.

Here is a wedding I did late last year - only just getting around to blogging about it now, since I also did the wedding of the Bride's sister last weekend.
Totally loving beach weddings... wonder if it's possible to specialise in them... hrmm.

[jumpy]

Nice pics Arch-angel. Out of interest do any of you use ND filters on bright days to shoot wide open at sync speed?

[lesliecool]

re: second shooter rights

just been handed a contract detailing rights/obligations as a second shooter for another photographer. before i sign my life away, it says that no images are to be used for my portfolio whatsoever. I know that all rights belong to the primary photographer but would I be out of line in asking if i can use them for my blog or portfolio if i put a watermark saying "images for xxx photography"? i currently allow my own assistants use of their own photos for their portfolio if they kindly ask and credit appropriately.

any others with experience from the primary or second photographer perspective?

[dche5390]

Originally Posted by lesliecool

re: second shooter rights

just been handed a contract detailing rights/obligations as a second shooter for another photographer. before i sign my life away, it says that no images are to be used for my portfolio whatsoever. I know that all rights belong to the primary photographer but would I be out of line in asking if i can use them for my blog or portfolio if i put a watermark saying "images for xxx photography"? i currently allow my own assistants use of their own photos for their portfolio if they kindly ask and credit appropriately.

Talk to your photographer. You have a choice to either work or not work for this fella. At least be thankful there is a contract in place, rather than just a verbal agreement. Too many newcomers have been screwed over due to a lack of paperwork that supports them.

I personally don't care about the images my associates/assistant may take on any given assignment. They however, must tag or provide a link to my business. But that said, any photo taken by them, I allow them to show as it is part of their own work.

[triggerpeg]

Its common as a 2nd tog IF you charge higher $$ rates when waive your rights to the images you take. If it was pro-bono/$0 and your doing it for your portfolio, you should be allowed to keep the images you take and do with them what ever you like.

Speak to the tog / explain to them exactly what you want to do with the photos / commercial? or strictly portfolio only etc. I think the primary tog is more concerned about you posting the photos before they have a chance to.

[lesliecool]

yes i would get compensated for the images that i take. though i don't think the compensation is enough to warrant all usage rights to be waived. i'll have a talk with the photog to discuss usage options as I believe he has made this contract as he is a bit insecure and has probably been burnt in the past. yes i agree a contract is better than none at all. my purpose is just to share with my friends/followers what i have been working on and of course direct credit where credit is due (respect to the primary photog), not pass off the images as if they were my own clients.

[Arch-Angel]

Originally Posted by jumpy

Nice pics Arch-angel. Out of interest do any of you use ND filters on bright days to shoot wide open at sync speed?

Sorry mate, only just saw your question.
Nah, I do carry filters with me, but don't bother for portraits.

Sync speed? Don't use flash so I don't have that problem. That particular day was pretty overcast so it wasn't that fast anyway (and light was fairly even), but not unusual for shutter speeds to get around 1/6000 at pretty wide apertures.

For interests sake, here's a shot from the other wedding I was talking about. Bride and Groom were fantastic easy going people, and couldn't help themselves when we came across a street band. By the time they'd finished dancing a crowd of about 50 people had gathered to cheer them on


(my wife insisted I make this sepia - I prefer it in colour personally)

God I love Byron!


I'm taking a couple of months off, so don't have any more recent wedding pics at the moment

[michaeliam]

Originally Posted by lesliecool

re: second shooter rights

just been handed a contract detailing rights/obligations as a second shooter for another photographer. before i sign my life away, it says that no images are to be used for my portfolio whatsoever. I know that all rights belong to the primary photographer but would I be out of line in asking if i can use them for my blog or portfolio if i put a watermark saying "images for xxx photography"? i currently allow my own assistants use of their own photos for their portfolio if they kindly ask and credit appropriately.

any others with experience from the primary or second photographer perspective?

As what Dan said, I don't mind it being used for their own portfolio as long as they mentioned that they second shot with me and not masked it as their own wedding.

[connico]

Originally Posted by Power47

isolation FTW
image

Maybe its just me... but the tree branches and leaves on the top are very distracting?

[sejanus]

i think thats pretty unfair that a 2nd photog can't use his images to promote himself.

On the (rare) occasion I use a 2nd photog, he can do whatever he wants with the pics as long as he doesn't actively promote his business to the client over mine.