My wedding photographer... OMG :-( !

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #13568259
I got married in Brazil 5 days ago. Congrats to me (And i am still here until January

Congrats!

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #13568259
She (The photographer) was using a Nikon Crop with a kit lens (I would think that FF is the norm for a wedding?)..

My wedding photographer was using a Nikon Crop camera. Our pictures turned out great.

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #13568259
She was using direct flash all the time without a defuser...

One doesn't necessarily need a diffuser...

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #13568259
When i asked the misses to ask if i could have the RAW files she didn't even know what RAW was...

That is pretty bad. If photography is one's profession, they should be knowledgeable in it enough to know what RAW is, even if they choose not to use it.

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #13568259
I had my 60D with me with my 17-55mm, she commented at the end that her dream is to have my camera....
We paid the equivalent of 400 British pounds..

You get what you pay for. As others have mentioned above, did you check out her portfolio first before hiring her? What do those images look like?


On a side note, when my wife and I were getting ready to make save-the-date cards, we asked one of our friends to go to the beach with us and take our pictures for us. She only has an XSi and kit lens. I also brought my 50 1.8 for her to use that day as well. As far as how to use all the settings on her camera or what RAW is or how to change depth of field, she was pretty clueless. Even so, her eye for composition and creative ideas for shots were pretty good. I took the photos and did post processing on them myself (not much was even needed) and we got several really great shots to use on our save-the-date cards.

So, I guess I'm saying, it might not be as bad as you may have initially thought. The only way to really get any idea would be to see her portfolio of work.

2slo wrote in post #13569085
Sounds like you aren't married! 1st rule of marriage: wives are never wrong

Nick. Congrats on the wedding. Just do not forget rule #1, and your marriage will last a long time. If you expect the worst from the photographer, who did not 'appear' to be a pro, the pics might be ok, or even better. Keep your fingers crossed on the pics. My wife and I did not get the pics that we wanted, when we got married, so we got dressed up again, and took some formal poses with a timer. We still have one of them blown up, and hanging on the wall.

Funny how this photographer is judged on their kit rather their somewhat ability or creativity. But just trying to brighten up the mood here, for all we know, the photographer might be kick-ass at photoshop and produce some very nice shots!! =P

If the photog turns out to be pretty good then the wife will be happy. If not, she will get on your case for not interfering and helping her choose a photog. Basically, you can't win, so don't even try

bohdank wrote in post #13570490
If the photog turns out to be pretty good then the wife will be happy. If not, she will get on your case for not interfering and helping her choose a photog. Basically, you can't win, so don't even try

LOL. I agree. +1

d3m0n_edge wrote in post #13570465
Funny how this photographer is judged on their kit rather their somewhat ability or creativity. But just trying to brighten up the mood here, for all we know, the photographer might be kick-ass at photoshop and produce some very nice shots!! =P

You do realize that the cameras and lenses are the tools. You need the right tools for the job. There are inferior tools and better ones. There are tools that can break. There are tools that would make the jobs done a lot faster and easier. The argument about not the gear that does the job is getting old.

I'd rather one of my mates decked out with FF cameras and L primes photographing my wedding than Dennis Reggie with a kit lens and built in flash, but that's just me.

Hope they turn out well though, I have seen decent shots with that setup so definitely there is hope there

Congrats on getting married! That's the important thing Happy relationship, great wife - who cares about the photos

I just scanned our weddings negatives from 15+ years ago.
Photographer was total moron or (and) drunk (which wasn't unusual back then).
But we were in focus and I'm glad we have at least something.
Wish you to look at your photos from wedding after 15+ of happy marriage.

Congrats!!!

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #13568259
She (The photographer) was using a Nikon Crop with a kit lens (I would think that FF is the norm for a wedding?)...

The Nikon D5100 has lots of features. One of which is selective colouring in built! According to Nikon ads, it allows for creative photos making your portraits and weddings poop-out. So if she is using this camera you are golden!

Yes, despite the vehement denials from many nikonians, the genuine professionals secretly lust to go to Canon.
I think it's the thin red line.

delhi wrote in post #13570624
Congrats!!!


The Nikon D5100 has lots of features. One of which is selective colouring in built! According to Nikon ads, it allows for creative photos making your portraits and weddings poop-out. So if she is using this camera you are golden!


Yes, despite the vehement denials from many nikonians, the genuine professionals secretly lust to go to Canon.
I think it's the thin red line.

My first one did.

Lol.

My dear old dad used to say "there are photographers, then there is them that takes pictures".....

FF is not a necessity (I've shot a couple of weddings with a pair of 30Ds), but using a kit lens is much more of a worry (slow focus, not really fast enough, etc)...I didn't diffuse my flashes either, I bounced them off the ceilings and used remote flashes to fill as well...

But...I think you're right to be worried, really interested in seeing what the pics look like

TooManyShots wrote in post #13570523
You do realize that the cameras and lenses are the tools. You need the right tools for the job. There are inferior tools and better ones. There are tools that can break. There are tools that would make the jobs done a lot faster and easier. The argument about not the gear that does the job is getting old.

I think you might be missing the point. It's just as possible to take great photos with gear you would consider 'inferior' as it is to take crap photos with a Mark II and L primes. It's ultimately the photographer that matters. For just about anything but sports, you could conceivably use any number of camera bodies from beginner to professional, and still turn out a very professional looking product. The argument may be getting old to you but it's very true.