My wedding photographer... OMG :-( !

bohdank wrote in post #13582113
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
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.

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...)

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/

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

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.....

jase1125 wrote in post #13590873
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

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.

Dr.D wrote in post #13590517
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/

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.

NLe wrote in post #13582099
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 IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

jase1125 wrote in post #13590873
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.

wayne.robbins wrote in post #13591969
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.

kcbrown wrote in post #13591892


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.

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

A few from my first wedding...

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

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

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

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.

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

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

jase1125 wrote in post #13592676
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.

oklaiss wrote in post #13593134
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.