Wedding Photography

Forums › Digital Imaging › Wedding Photography

1 | 2 | 3

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1148698 6-Oct-2014 22:13

ajobbins: I'm getting married in the Hawkes Bay next year and we are currently looking at photographers. My fiance is a graphic designer by trade and does a lot of photography based work, and is very competent both behind a camera and post production.

Obviously she can't photograph her own wedding, but at the same time it's somewhat frustrating that most (all?) photographers seem to charge a large amount and take lots of photos, but you actually get very little at the end, unless you keep paying. For example, you might pay a few grand for them to attend for the day, take photos and you get to choose a small few you get at full res/printed/retouched, and then maybe some more as low res/"web" images, and if you want more than that, you pay more.

We would much prefer to have someone who can take a good photo attend for the day and shoot, and then just hand over the memory card/copies of the raw photos at the end. My fiance can retouch as required, and we would have all full res images. I realise this kind of goes against the business model of photographers, but at the same time they charge a lot of money for skills we don't really need.

Is anyone aware of photographers (Preferably around the Hawkes Bay region) who might be open to a 'shoot only' kind of arrangement?

As previously mentioned, approach the NZIPP (New Zealand Institute of Professional Photography).

The best wedding photographers will be members and there is a 'find a photographer' function on the site.

Esther Bunning in Featherston is very good indeed and would I am sure travel.

Just remember the old adage - if you pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys.

timmmay

20581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1148838 7-Oct-2014 07:38

ajobbins: That's the thing. My fiancée is well versed in both retouching and processing. She shoots her own photos in RAW and works with photos every day as part of her job. I think she may be happy with the regular photographers package, as well as a copy of all the .RAWs on top, so she can do her own processing and retouching in addition. While saving a bit of money would be good, it's also about her being able to apply her own creative style to the images.

I've never released RAW files, and no photographer I know has either. You might be lucky and get them, or you might get told they cost an additional $5K - it's common to charge for them even if jpeg is included in a package.

Instead of asking for RAW files I suggest you ask for high quality high resolution jpeg files with good standard processing - ie no weird effects, actions, all color, with B&W additional if they want to supply them. You'll get a much better response, and there's very little you can't do with a good jpeg that you can do with a RAW file. The main advantage of a raw files is being able to recover highlights and boost shadows more easily, which a good photographer will have already done where required. Some photographers will get offended if you ask for all color not leaving it up to them, I suggest those photographers are too precious about their "art" and shouldn't be used. I'm more practical, plus I always aimed to do things for my customers how I'd want them if it was my wedding, but my default package and what I supplied was generous so I rarely got asked for extras or variations.

Geektastic: Esther Bunning in Featherston is very good indeed and would I am sure travel.

Just remember the old adage - if you pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys.

Esther is awesome, but she's not a wedding photographer as far as I know. She's more portrait and illustrative, I think. Maybe she used to be, or maybe she does weddings,

dman

953 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1151018 10-Oct-2014 02:54

Hire 2 professional camera's for a day. Get 2 photography enthusiasts ( they might have their own camera's too ) who will click double as many as a normal photographer would, from different angles, ask them to be as creative as possible. Give them unlimited supply of memory, food, drinks

LOL, that would fail so badly! You'd get oodles of photos for sure, but if you're starting out with crap.... getting a thousand times more of it is still going to be grap.

It takes a *LOT* of knowledge and skill to be a really good photographer. Merely handing a person a "professional" camera doesn't mean they'll take pro photos (quite possibly if you hand a person a top of the line camera they'll end up taking WORSE photos than if you just give them a good point and shoot, as the pro camera will overwhelm them and they'll be shooting on all the wrong settings and be utterly screwing it up), and I can guantee if you say had an enthusiast shooting with a Nikon D4s for the day vs a top notch pro shooting with a Nikon D3300 that the pro would end up producing much nicer photos at the end of the day (oh... and mentioning the two camera bodies does completely gloss over the point that really the camera bodies used is very secondary to use good glass. Which most couples if they take your advice would completely overlook to hire).

Petapixel (one of the biggest photography blogs on the internet) even did a satire article on exactly what you're proposing:
http://petapixel.com/2013/10/04/save-big-money-hiring-professional-wedding-photographer/

btw context for what I'm saying: I am only a hobby photographer, but I am a professional wedding videographer and also am an admin on NZ's largest wedding photographers group on Facebook. So I have a good feeling for what goes into the creation of good wedding photos.

https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

timmmay

20581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1151054 10-Oct-2014 08:23

dman: It takes a *LOT* of knowledge and skill to be a really good photographer. Merely handing a person a "professional" camera doesn't mean they'll take pro photos (quite possibly if you hand a person a top of the line camera they'll end up taking WORSE photos than if you just give them a good point and shoot, as the pro camera will overwhelm them and they'll be shooting on all the wrong settings and be utterly screwing it up), and I can guantee if you say had an enthusiast shooting with a Nikon D4s for the day vs a top notch pro shooting with a Nikon D3300 that the pro would end up producing much nicer photos at the end of the day (oh... and mentioning the two camera bodies does completely gloss over the point that really the camera bodies used is very secondary to use good glass. Which most couples if they take your advice would completely overlook to hire).

I'll go one up on that - a good professional would do better with a decent point and shoot than an amateur with top of the line equipment.

dman

953 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1151211 10-Oct-2014 11:26

I'm tempted to one up you again and say a top professional with a cellphone would do better than a run of the mill newbie amateur with top of the line equipment!

https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

timmmay

20581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1151247 10-Oct-2014 12:18

Perhaps!

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1151279 10-Oct-2014 12:55

Perhaps not, if the slr set properly with basic instruction, it will be 50 50

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1151281 10-Oct-2014 12:59

I'd add that if a paid photographer missed getting the requested group shots etc, then artistic/photographic skill in other shots won't save their backside. Despite repeatedly declining to do weddings, I've relented under pressure and shot a few. I hate it - and particularly hate trying to herd-up people for formal shots. If I was to do it again (very unlikely if I have my way) then being 100% organised with checklists, and hopefully an assistant - with the skills I lack unless I had a megaphone would help a lot - but nah - I'd still rather swallow dead rats. I think being known to the wedding party and guests isn't a great thing either - you get treated as Fred with a camera - not the photographer.

timmmay

20581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1151283 10-Oct-2014 13:02

joker97: Perhaps not, if the slr set properly with basic instruction, it will be 50 50

Having seen the work of many amateurs and new professionals, I disagree. One of the biggest skills of a wedding photographer is making people comfortable and building a suitable relationship with your subjects, someone new behind a camera doesn't have that ability or confidence yet.

Plus, technical stuff. I've seen AWFUL side shadow, limbs and heads cut off, horizons very crooked, etc. Then you get into things like camera height, do you want your subjects heads to be above or below the horizon, and if above where should the cut be? Camera height also influences whether heads look properly proportioned or too large. Then there's perspective, whether you use a wide angle lens or a long one, depending how much background width you want to show. Then there's light direction and color, background, added light, distracting elements in the frame, etc.

No matter the camera a pro will look out for all of this, while being on the run, entertaining people, keeping everything to a schedule, all while looking like they're relaxing and having a good time.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1151288 10-Oct-2014 13:04

Have to agree on that front

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1151329 10-Oct-2014 14:22

I think we've resigned to the fact that it's all or nothing when it comes to a wedding photographer.

Twitter: ajobbins

timmmay

20581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1151335 10-Oct-2014 14:31

Yes, in terms of they do everything or nothing, but of course you get to choose your photographer. If you ask for basic color processing you can do any creative edits you want to afterwards, from a good source jpeg. Some will give you a TIFF or similar, though you may need to supply a hard drive for that much data. Some may give you fully edited DNG files, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1151337 10-Oct-2014 14:33

Raw is same as dng?

Do you lose information going from raw to tiff?

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1151341 10-Oct-2014 14:41

joker97: Raw is same as dng?

Do you lose information going from raw to tiff?

We've asked. No one is willing to provide anything but high res JPEGs.

I will be asking for a un/less-edited copies where the photo is heavily changed from as shot, in part because some of the styles will date and we may want to change the look later.

Twitter: ajobbins

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1151345 10-Oct-2014 14:47

nothing wrong with hi res JPG if the white balance and exposure processed correctly.

1 | 2 | 3