Wedding Photog

[DionM]

So I was at a wedding yesterday, and as always I checked out the equipment the photog has - usually some nice gear.

This one had:
- 300D (no battery grip, just a std 300D)
- 18-55 kit lens
- 550EX flash; in full auto mode

That was the sum total of the kit.

I was stunned. No backup body. No fast aperature lens for nice blurred backgrounds (let alone nice quality shots, as I am not impressed with the 18-55 - it onlys gets acceptable at say f8, but who shoots a wedding at f8 ). No diffuser on the flash.

The flash was in fully upright mode all the time (ie, flash firing directly up - not even an angle bounce) with no bounce card or diffuser. This was even the case for portrait shots - flash just firing off to the left. It was a big church with high ceilings so I don't know how effective the bouce would have been (and the roof was green). Even when the photog was 1-2m from the couple, it was bouncing fully upright. Outdoor shots, the flash was firing into the air (bouncing off clouds, perhaps? ).

The money shot (couple kissing) was missed, because the batteries in the flash were still recharging from a previous shot (using half-flat batteries in a slow cycling 550EX - no external pack or anything). The couple had a magnificient stained glass window behind them, but the photog was more interested in shooting from between the couple and the window

I was nothing short of disgusted . Poor equipment, poor technique. I don't know how much was being charged. I only hope the photog is good at PS because there will be a lot of underexposed shots, or shots with lots of harsh shadows off to the right or under people's eyes. I don't normally take my 20D etc to a wedding, but I wish had this time, just to give the couple some nice shots. The photog had the laptop there at the reception (trying to sell photos - there was even 'how to order cards' on the tables) and there were not many impressed people looking at them ...

My opinion is when you pay someone, you expect professionalism. If it was a friend, fair enough.

[Killakoala]

That's terrible. I would have done better and been for free. It is a pity you didn't take your equipment. I'd be interested to hear the full story of the photog.

[shutterbug]

hmmmmm....that does not sound too good.

Maybe it was a free gig from a friend I hope? Did you got the name of the company?

I always tell potential clients to look at a couple of complete wedding albums not just the "best of portfolio" Everyone can show a portfolio of top images, but having constant results through out a wedding is another matter.

As a outsider we always seem to judge, but at the end, if the couple is happy, they have done their job.

Even with good photoshop technique, I don't think they can save very underexpose images.

my 2 cents

[DionM]

hmmmmm....that does not sound too good.

Maybe it was a free gig from a friend I hope? Did you got the name of the company?

I always tell potential clients to look at a couple of complete wedding albums not just the "best of portfolio" Everyone can show a portfolio of top images, but having constant results through out a wedding is another matter.

As a outsider we always seem to judge, but at the end, if the couple is happy, they have done their job.

Even with good photoshop technique, I don't think they can save very underexpose images.

my 2 cents

Yeah, I have the name of the company. It was a contract, not a freebie.

This is not a general diss against wedding photogs - just the professionalism of this one. All the others I have seen (including my own) have been nothing short of professional (in fact the guy who did my wedding did it old school - old Nikon body with hammerhead flash and MF lenses - but he knew his stuff).

[Antsl]

Don't get too stressed about it... its photographers like that who make the rest of us look good!

It is sad though that there are photographers like that out there who think they are good enough to do justice to someones wedding... take a reality check please.

It is also sad that some couples do not recognise the difference between good photographers and bad.

[Michael]

A lot of people seem to think that now they have a big bad camera they can go about charging professional prices and claiming they know all this and that when really they have no clue.

It's kind of funny yet disturbing in a way.

[Dug]

This really gets up my nose. just because some fool spends a few grand on a camera he or she can set up as a photographer. I have heard so many horror stories over the years.

I also wonder about the guys charging $10,000+ to shoot a wedding there is one big name locally who books the wedding then is "unavailable" on the day so sends a "trainee" Unless of course the bride and groom have sufficient social ranking for him to make an appearance.


There has to be a better way but I cannot think of it.

[Zeeke]

they should setup a national database for shoddy shamateurs who do rip jobs and stuff like this..

Ive been asked a few times if ill do wedding photos.. each time ive said no.. but ive also referred them to someone who id trust with wedding photos... just because some guy carrys a laptop and can plug his camera into it doesnt make him a expert.. hell.. i could do that.. but i wouldnt.. ive only been into photography for 3 months..

Tim

[Hendrix]

Dug, I only can think of one photograper on the coast that charges that money with that attitude, but you sure its a him?

And if the couple only was prepared a couple of hundred dollars for the coverage, then the so called photographer never makes enough money to buy a second body or other lenses.

Just some of my thoughts

[PiroStitch]

I have been perusing wedding magazines for ideas for a shoot I have to do next month and some of the photos are shockers. I know I shouldn't be criticising the pics THAT much as I'm not exactly a pro photographer, but I can tell what looks good and what is utter trash...and these pics weren't that crash hot.

Oh well, at least it's a lesson for me to learn what's good and what's not so good

[Onyx]

Keep in mine what you or I may consider a good or bad picture may be completely opposite of what a married couple's perceptions are.

Case in point - I shot my sister's wedding 3 mths ago. The shots most liked by my parents were not the ones with best composition or lighting or whatever - but ones that features people... all the same people in all the usual boring poses with fake smiles and all that dreary super boredtastic totally uninspiring shots. They are the ones that got printed/enlarged, etc.

[sirhc55]

Many years ago I photographed an up and coming actress in different locations in London. She wanted a personal portfolio. Approximately 360 trannies were shot on the day - she liked only one It was out of focus

[redline]

at least the the "photog" showed up to the wedding.
is there a link to their gallery? maybe they have good pp skills.

[sejanus]

yeah people like te guy with the 18-55 really annoy me.

it's people like him that inspired me to give weddings a crack.