First wedding posts

[Joe Cyr]

Hello, here is my first wedding post here. I have been shooting weddings on the side from my regular job for the past six years. Any thoughts on this? Not sure how the quality of the upload will be, still trying to figure that out.

Thanks in advance.

[Joe Cyr]

another one

[DAVIDJAY]

Great shots Joe! I like the first one the best!

Cheers,
DJ

[llaamaboy]

I would tell all my grooms to always move the outside hand reacing for the birde.

For example, in your photo, the gooms left arms is hanging leading all attention down off the print implying a lot less attention to the bride. If his left hand was on the Brides waist it would add so much to the photo and frame the bottom of the photo.

I normally start preping the groom in all pre-wedding meetings ... it adds a lot of "emotion" to the photos and Brides (who do 95% of the buying) love emotion of the groom directed towards her.

Your eye caught the moment ... :D

[MALI]

The first one seems to have some sort of a color cast. Could use some more contrast.

MALI

[kawter2]

The first one seems to have some sort of a color cast. Could use some more contrast.

MALI



looks like a scan of a print.. great shot though

[BLINN]

Like the shots especially the 2nd one. I guess the first is a scan. Are you using film now or digital.

[bpuppy]

Shots are good, scanning not so good. Second one is better, but the red dress is really blown out. Too much saturation.

[Joe Cyr]

Like the shots especially the 2nd one. I guess the first is a scan. Are you using film now or digital.

Yes, it's a scan (and a crappy one at that) of a print. It's all I had available. The couple received the print. I still shoot film for weddings for a number of reasons. Mostly, though its the time factor. Shoot the wedding, drop the film off for processing at a respectable establishment, give the package to the couple, done. My only real time is the time spent at the wedding.

Secondly, I only have the one digital camera and am not comfortable going with just one at a wedding. (which I do as a side business from my real job)

Thanks for the input guys.

[BLINN]

I am in the same boat as you, however there is so much more you can do with digital. Make the image look the way you want. Honestly you could really boost your clientel and your prices. You don't have to jump to $3000 but just pay yourself for you time on the PC and you have even happer client. Keep you film and use it as a backup. Always great idea to have a back up.

[Joe Cyr]

Michael, I charge far, far (did I say far) less than $3,000 (US) because I don't do anything with the photos myself afterwards (simply no time) and also because of the area we live in. Most of the couples that come to me are coming from a "pro" photographer's business where they just learned how much those guys charge (usually around $2,000 for packages). I am no pro. Just someone who feels takes good pics and gets paid about $50-75 per hour to do so. Not a bad gig and helps with saving up for new lenses and such.

Those of you that shoot digital, do you print your own as well? Just curious.

[BLINN]

No, the quality is not there. IMO you can not match the quality of a good pro lab. Costco is great for proofs. They chemically treat the prints which help to slow the fading process. Ink jets just fade to quickly, and home or cheap lasers are not high quaity photo prints. A good quaity laser will still cost a couple of grand. 18cents at costco can't beat it.