My Wedding Photographer

[OregonRebel]

I just got married in March, while visiting my (then) fiancee in Paraguay. Since it was my wedding and I was quite busy, I just took a few photos long before and after the ceremony with the Sigma 30 f/1.4 I brought along for the occasion. It did okay by itself until they turned out out the lights and I had to use some supplemental flash (see my Flickr page if you want to check out any of the shots I took -- they are mostly the decorations, from before the ceremony).

Anyhow, the "pro" photographer my wife hired showed up with a Nikon. I questioned her and found out it only had an f/5.6 lens! She used flash and had several assistants also taking photos, but it's been a month today and I still haven't seen any of their photos. They seemed to know what they were doing, but I'm surprised they didn't have better equipment.

[sapearl]

Hi Brian - well, first off your wife hired the photographer so you may want to be careful how you tread on this issue.

You mentioned that she was only using an 5.6 lens - how were the other folks equipped and is it possible she changed to something a bit "faster" later on - you were distracted a bit my more important things at the time .

My "best/most versatile" lens is only f/4 and I use flash, and that combo gives me excellent coverage. The fact that there were 2+ photographers there implies coverage should have been pretty good, and it can take some time merging in that many shots/styles from more than one shooter, hence the month's time since then.

How was the gear of the other shooters deficient?

What does the contract say - that is, how quickly did the photographer indicate you would see any images? Normally I'll get the online gallery up in less than a week, and the proofs available in less than three weeks..... but that's just me. I'll be optimistic about your situation and suggest that things should turn out fine. If there was a huge sum of shots to edit - likely with that many photographers - then it may take a bit of time to put things in a presentable package. Keep us posted. - Stu

[OregonRebel]

I only got a good look at the main shooter's gear, but the other two were also using flash and similar set-ups. I haven't seen the contract, either, since my wife took care of all of that. She said that it was going to take a month or so to get the photos, so I assume major Photoshopping is underway.

[Peacefield]

I wouldn't fret . . . yet.

As Stu says, they clearly came in with some resources. And though I use faster lenses, I frequently supplement with flash; not because I have to but because I've learned (slowly) how not to avoid but embrace flash.

I hear all sorts of quotes regarding time to turn photos around. It depends on how many they take, how much processing they do, and how efficient their workflow is. I attended a friend's daughter's bat mitzvah a few months ago and a single photographer working just a few hour party quoted a 6 week turn around (and having seen the images, it's hard to tell what they were doing with them all that time, but that's another story). With multiple shooters, they may have a lot of culling and processing ahead of them.

So like I said, don't fret . . . yet.

[RT McAllister]

I questioned her and found out it only had an f/5.6 lens!

If that f/5.6 lens was an $11,000 canon 800L would you be impressed?

I guess I don't understand your question. Are you pre-judging your photographer before you see the photos? People generally experience buyer's remorse after they get the goods.

If you want anyone here to assure you that your photos will turn out fine... nobody can do that. No more than they can assure you they would be OK with better gear.

[Peacefield]

Originally Posted by RT McAllister

Are you pre-judging your photographer before you see the photos?

I do that. Not based on equipment, though.

That bat mitzvah I was describing, that photographer had some kind of Canon camera (hard to tell which model) with a 580 and battery pack. The flash NEVER came off camera. And she had one of those dopey Sto-fen devices on it with the flash angled up 45 degrees. I guess she thought that would make her flash pictures look better. I just knew they were going to be awful. Let's just say my apprehensions were not misplaced.

[OregonRebel]

I guess I was surprised since many of the threads on here say you need f/2.8 or better to take wedding photos, which is apparently not the case. Like I said, she seemed to know what she was doing, so I hope the photos come out fine.

[sapearl]

Brian, a lot of folks like to shoot available light with fast lenses, or the same with flash supplement..... they do a beautiful job, that's their style and I'd never criticize it.

I come from a medium format tradition where we didnt' have fast lenses, and had to use these hugea$$ potato masher flashes . So I naturally still use flash, and not the fastest lenses in a lot of my work - again, that's my style, but I also own some fast glass too.

I'd say you're still in that "month or so" window, and as Robert says I wouldn't fret. Sounds like you had a team working for you, they had supplemental light, and you should be in good shape.

Originally Posted by OregonRebel

I guess I was surprised since many of the threads on here say you need f/2.8 or better to take wedding photos, which is apparently not the case. Like I said, she seemed to know what she was doing, so I hope the photos come out fine.

[Karl Johnston]

Originally Posted by OregonRebel

I guess I was surprised since many of the threads on here say you need f/2.8 or better to take wedding photos, which is apparently not the case. Like I said, she seemed to know what she was doing, so I hope the photos come out fine.

A lot of the photographers who say that are over-obsessive gear monkeys with little or no real experience in actual pro photography so I wouldn't base your assumptions on that fact alone.

[Permagrin]

well, I'm an Oregon wedding photographer or was until I retired this year. I'm not the OP's photog though. And I shoot nikon. Maybe I can shed some light here. First, if her camera was one of the new ones, higher ISO's really aren't an issue so neither is F5.6. Secondly, many nikon photogs use the 70-300 VR instead of the heavier 70-200, for weddings. Yes it is 5.6 at the long end but it seems to produce good results (I've used the 70-200 in my work and only recently bought the 70-300 but wouldn't hesitate to use it if I needed it). It probably wasn't her only lens. lol And my contract states 4-6 weeks before photos are done.

The question I have for those posting here about 2.8 or faster only...do you never shoot at F4 or F5.6? Often when I'm doing portraits, even with my fast lenses, I'm at F4 or F5.6...so I'm just not seeing what the issue is. Except that the OP is pre-judging the photog based on gear.

edit: I'm not saying she's good and I'm not saying she's bad. I'm saying that coming to a photography forum AFTER the photographer has been hired and wedding shot, to speculate about the quality of the photog is a little strange.

[SuzyView]

To be honest, we gear nerds love to spout off our own theories about lenses and speed, but in truth, the equipment is an extension of the pro behind it. When you get the photos back, you will be surprised how good they will be. F5.6 using a good flash system will bring you wonderful shots. And then there's the PP that can really clean up noise and make the subject pop! Yes, those of us who shoot weddings tend to like faster lenses, f2.8 or faster, but in truth, it's not always the gear. The talent and skills of the shooter go a long way.

[Down_Shift]

If I'm flashing, my f/stop wouldn't be completely wide open. Sharper images usually when you stop down (~5.6) with flash and less chance of OOF.

My 50mm f/1.4 is great, but I usually have it around 2.8 to get sharper pics.. open it up when I need to in low light and no flash.

[sapearl]

I agree Down_Shift . I do have f/1.8, f/2 and f/2.8 lenses and they get their special uses in the right circumstances.

But by example I shot a 90th birthday party reception in a cramped restaurant yesterday, with blindingly back-lit green house seating in one area, and dark inside rooms for my group shots in another. Most of the action in the "greenhouse" was such that I was shooting into horrible backlight. Bounced flash, shooting around f/6.3 gave me beautiful fill with sufficient DOF to get pleasing shots of the principles as they greeted and hugged.

Later we did groups of 3-10 people in dark inside rooms. Again I used flash - with the camera set on Manual - bouncing off the walls to the side and behind me for nice, pleasant, even diffusion, at about f/6.3; again great DOF, sharpness, and pleasant modelled lighting.

I could have done the greenhouse with available, close to wide open, but the lighting was too inconsistent and washing at the edges with ungly eye and facial shadows. The bounced flash really evened things out well.

But as Joey and Joelene and others have said - don't try to second guess other photographers with arm chair critique of work that you have yet to see. You'll just give yourself ulcers, and worse...... end up in a huge fight with your new bride; not a good idea.

Everybody has a different technique. It's the results that count.... whether Canon, Hassy, Nikon or Sony.

Originally Posted by Down_Shift

If I'm flashing, my f/stop wouldn't be completely wide open. Sharper images usually when you stop down (~5.6) with flash and less chance of OOF. ......

[form]

I don't like this new trend of people checking to see if their photographer is "acceptable according to other photographers." Don't base judgment on equipment, looks, or anything else except portfolio and finished product. In particular, don't base your judgment on others' opinions of the portfolio: It's not US who need to be satisfied with the finished photos, it's YOU.

[OregonRebel]

Thanks for the reassurances. I'll post some of her photos on my website when I get them in.