Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 19 Dec 2011 (Monday) 11:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

My wedding photographer... OMG :-( !

 
joeblack2022
Goldmember
3,005 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2011
Location: The Great White North
     
Dec 23, 2011 10:40 |  #91

bohdank wrote in post #13582113 (external link)
I got married in 2003 in a Carib country. The photog, a rather a successful B&W photog specializing in portraits of jazz musicians made for a really really bad wedding photog.

I realized that wedding photography is a specialization. I, certainly, would not do it.

The reverse is true. I know about a wedding photog who did a news assignment and the pics didn't come out so good...

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #13589637 (external link)
I just asked the misses.. "When do we get the wedding photos?''
Reply "I don't know, usually they need 1-2 months"
ME "What the f***"
Misses "But they are going to make an exception and do them before i go back to England"
.....
The misses is going back to the UK on the 15th of Jan, two weeks after me..

I was in the Dominican a few weeks ago for a family wedding, they hired the photog out of Toronto and he was scheduled to be in town for other assignments too. By the end of the night, he had a slideshow going on his laptop for guests to see. But he did cost 5-6x more.


Joel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
clhowley
Junior Member
Avatar
26 posts
Joined Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
     
Dec 23, 2011 11:55 as a reply to  @ joeblack2022's post |  #92

All I can say is you get what you pay for, and as long as you have a few shots of you two looking incredibly joyful, then that's what matters.
(granted, the hubs and I did spend $3800 on our wedding photographer. We signed just in time, too; his prices went up about $800 the next month! He was so worth it...)


Crystal-Lee Howley
makeup artist, gripped Canon 5D, EF 50mm f/1.8
http://www.clhowley.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dr.D
Goldmember
Avatar
1,236 posts
Likes: 104
Joined Feb 2011
Location: SL,UT.
     
Dec 23, 2011 12:41 |  #93

Not sure you should worry. This is my friend's site and I think he does a awesome job. When I went out shooting with him the first time I thought he was joking when he pulled out his XTI with a 18-55. I asked him what other lenses he had and he didn't have any. I held his camera for a min. while he climbed over something and noticed a ton of dust on the lens. I suggested he cleaned it and he told me he should wear glasses since he couldn't see the dust, WTF! I personally think he does some awesome work with what he has.
http://www.veniality.c​om/ (external link)


6D . Gripped 60D . Gripped XSI . Opteka 6.5 . Canon 10-22 . Canon 18-135 . Canon 50 1.8 MKII . Canon 24-105 f4 L . Canon 70-200 2.8 IS MKII L . Canon 70-300 IS USM . Sigma 150-600 . Canon 100mm Macro . Canon 2X III . 430 EXII . Manfroto 190XPROB . Manfrotto 055XPROB . Black Rapid Sport . Outback 200
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1195651

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,402 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 261
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Pa
     
Dec 23, 2011 13:00 |  #94

I read all of the posts. All I can say is good luck. I hope you and your wife get the images you want:)


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jase1125
Goldmember
Avatar
3,027 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 82
Joined May 2010
Location: Lewisville, TX (DFW)
     
Dec 23, 2011 14:22 |  #95

100% of our wedding pics turned out solid black. Long time ago before I knew anything about photography. I suspect she forgot to take off the lens cap. For several years, my wife started to sob when someone would mention wedding pics.

Where it is interesting is the photographer had some outstanding images and she wasn't cheap. Just one little oversight.....


Jason

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bomzai
Senior Member
524 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Bothell WA, US
     
Dec 23, 2011 14:31 |  #96

jase1125 wrote in post #13590873 (external link)
100% of our wedding pics turned out solid black. Long time ago before I knew anything about photography. I suspect she forgot to take off the lens cap. For several years, my wife started to sob when someone would mention wedding pics.

Where it is interesting is the photographer had some outstanding images and she wasn't cheap. Just one little oversight.....

Hmmm... but photo subjects kinda could get a clue that they are being shot with lens cap on ;)


Camera: EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 70D, ™24-70mm f2.8 VC, EF 70-200mm IS f2.8 L II, EF 100mm IS f2.8 L Macro, EF-S 18-135 STM, Σ 12-24 II.
EOS 5D mkII, 20D, S100, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L, EF 24-105mm IS f4.0 L, EF 70-200mm IS f4.0 L, EF-S 18-200mm IS, EF 100mm f2.8 macro
Light: Sun, Speedlite 580EXII, 550EX, 430EX, EL-Skyports, Reflectors, Umbrellas, Diffusers etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jase1125
Goldmember
Avatar
3,027 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 82
Joined May 2010
Location: Lewisville, TX (DFW)
     
Dec 23, 2011 18:12 as a reply to  @ bomzai's post |  #97

Not necessarily. With all the action going on and if the cap was plain black with no lettering it might be missed. Not really sure as she wouldn't tell us what happened other than to say her camera had been repaired. Whatever it was, I believe it was operator error and not an equipment malfunction.


Jason

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Dec 23, 2011 19:10 |  #98

Dr.D wrote in post #13590517 (external link)
Not sure you should worry. This is my friend's site and I think he does a awesome job. When I went out shooting with him the first time I thought he was joking when he pulled out his XTI with a 18-55. I asked him what other lenses he had and he didn't have any. I held his camera for a min. while he climbed over something and noticed a ton of dust on the lens. I suggested he cleaned it and he told me he should wear glasses since he couldn't see the dust, WTF! I personally think he does some awesome work with what he has.
http://www.veniality.c​om/ (external link)

:shock:

That's fantastic work he does. Just....wow.

I think people here really don't appreciate just how capable even the most bottom of the line DSLRs are.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RhysPhotograph.Me
Senior Member
Avatar
504 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
     
Dec 23, 2011 19:19 |  #99
bannedPermanent ban

NLe wrote in post #13582099 (external link)
Don't worry too much about full frame vs crop and gears until you see the photos. I've seen some decent wedding pics with them.

I don't know what you've been told, but size matters baby!

A few from my first wedding...

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script


IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script


IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script


IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script


I'm going to be quite surprised if the Op's wedding photo's don't suck tbh, although the Op is at fault tbh for not being more involved in the selection process.

Yes you can shoot a wedding with the below camera like the Op's wedding tog... and produce some nice images even, but your swimming upstream. A master tradesman picks the best tool for the job, rather than just makes do with the tool he happens to have in his hand.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Wedding photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wayne.robbins
Goldmember
2,062 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Dec 23, 2011 19:32 |  #100

jase1125 wrote in post #13590873 (external link)
100% of our wedding pics turned out solid black. Long time ago before I knew anything about photography. I suspect she forgot to take off the lens cap. For several years, my wife started to sob when someone would mention wedding pics.

Where it is interesting is the photographer had some outstanding images and she wasn't cheap. Just one little oversight.....

Really, that sounds like an impossibility- for it to be as simple as the lens cap. The photog would surely notice the first time that they looked thru the camera viewfinder to frame any shot.
More likely is that the mode dial got moved from AV to Manual, or the settings set to something that resulted in black or near black result. You know, like setting it at ISO 100, with a shutter speed of 1/250th, F/4 or something, indoors without a flash. or EC/FC of something like -3...
Besides, assuming it was a recent digital camera, there would not be a AF confirmation..

I've always noticed that a lens cap was on just as I go to look thru the viewfinder. Had to be something else. Even a drunk photographer would notice leaving the lens cap on, whether they use the viewfinder or liveview. Unless they were using a rangefinder type of camera with a separate optical VF.

Sucks that you have no pics from the event though.


EOS 5D III, EOS 7D,EOS Rebel T4i, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, Canon 24-105L, Canon 18-135 IS STM, 1.4x TC III, 2.0x TC III, Σ 50mm f/1.4, Σ 17-50 OS, Σ 70-200 OS, Σ 50-500 OS, Σ 1.4x TC, Σ 2.0x TC, 580EXII(3), Canon SX-40, Canon S100
Fond memories: Rebel T1i, Canon 18-55 IS, Canon 55-250 IS, 18-135 IS (Given to a good home)...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jase1125
Goldmember
Avatar
3,027 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 82
Joined May 2010
Location: Lewisville, TX (DFW)
     
Dec 23, 2011 23:00 |  #101

wayne.robbins wrote in post #13591969 (external link)
Really, that sounds like an impossibility- for it to be as simple as the lens cap. The photog would surely notice the first time that they looked thru the camera viewfinder to frame any shot.

Not necessarily. Viewfinders don't always view through the lens. As I stated, long time ago - 1999.


Jason

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dr.D
Goldmember
Avatar
1,236 posts
Likes: 104
Joined Feb 2011
Location: SL,UT.
     
Dec 24, 2011 01:54 |  #102

kcbrown wrote in post #13591892 (external link)
:shock:

That's fantastic work he does. Just....wow.

I think people here really don't appreciate just how capable even the most bottom of the line DSLRs are.

Oh, I just like to add he has no flash and no lighting other than window light and the lamps he has around the shoot.


6D . Gripped 60D . Gripped XSI . Opteka 6.5 . Canon 10-22 . Canon 18-135 . Canon 50 1.8 MKII . Canon 24-105 f4 L . Canon 70-200 2.8 IS MKII L . Canon 70-300 IS USM . Sigma 150-600 . Canon 100mm Macro . Canon 2X III . 430 EXII . Manfroto 190XPROB . Manfrotto 055XPROB . Black Rapid Sport . Outback 200
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1195651

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Replaces
Goldmember
Avatar
1,079 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
     
Dec 24, 2011 02:18 |  #103

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13591924 (external link)
I don't know what you've been told, but size matters baby!

A few from my first wedding...

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script


IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script


IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script


IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script


I'm going to be quite surprised if the Op's wedding photo's don't suck tbh, although the Op is at fault tbh for not being more involved in the selection process.

Yes you can shoot a wedding with the below camera like the Op's wedding tog... and produce some nice images even, but your swimming upstream. A master tradesman picks the best tool for the job, rather than just makes do with the tool he happens to have in his hand.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

those are absolutely stunning with a "sub-par" equipment. bw!


"If you don't walk today, you have to run tomorrow."
Nikon, then Canon, then Nikon again. But I still love POTN over NikonCafe. :p

Nikon D90, MB-D80, Nikon D600, MB-D14, Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G, Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oklaiss
Senior Member
471 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Dec 24, 2011 02:25 |  #104

jase1125 wrote in post #13592676 (external link)
Not necessarily. Viewfinders don't always view through the lens. As I stated, long time ago - 1999.

You didn't use his whole quote...which said unless they are using a separate viewfinder in a camera such as a rangefinder, however i would assume they were using a dslr for wedding photography.


5D Mark II Gripped, 60D Gripped, 450D, 24-105 f/4L, 85 1.8, 70-200 f/4L IS, Nifty Fifty, 28 1.8, B+W/Lee/Cokin/Hitech filters, 430ex II x2
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jase1125
Goldmember
Avatar
3,027 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 82
Joined May 2010
Location: Lewisville, TX (DFW)
     
Dec 24, 2011 07:50 |  #105

oklaiss wrote in post #13593134 (external link)
You didn't use his whole quote...which said unless they are using a separate viewfinder in a camera such as a rangefinder, however i would assume they were using a dslr for wedding photography.

Yes I did. As I stated in my original post it was a long time ago. He wasn't thinking film and is thinking about dslr's. Like he mentioned there are other plausible explanations as well. They didn't appear underexposed. They were not mostly black but completely black. Most of the time an underexposed photo will have a specular highlight visible somewhere but there none in this case.


Jason

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

84,482 views & 1 like for this thread
My wedding photographer... OMG :-( !
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is jgt6
828 guests, 255 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.