Photo Forum / Photo Technique / People Photography / February 2004
WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY HELP PART ONE:
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Marshall Thurman - 04 Sep 2003 16:04 GMT I've been getting so much E-mail about this I have decided to go and start.
First, you've gone out and bought a consumer grade SLR at W-Mart or at the local camera shop. They told you its wonderful and you can do anything you want to do with it. It's auto focus, has a built in flash, a zoom lens in the 28MM to say 80MM range and the best thing its black and looks very professional.
You shoot some film. Play with it a little and get some really nice photographs. You are processing these in the local one hour. You probably have tried several brands and speeds of film. Someone sees you work ,likes it and says, my sister is getting married next week and I would love for you to photograph her wedding. OK. Let me tell why I think you should refuse this offer. Weddings have a bad habit of being held in dark places. A lot of auto focus systems don't work well in a low light situation. Because of the low light you are going to use a lot of flash and built in flashes do not have the necessary output to handle most shots past about 10ft. (3 meters). Most consumer grade zoom lens are slow in the f4 to 5.6 range and are not very sharp when shot wide open. If you have not settle in on a film you like your are likely to choose a very fast film like Kodak or Fuji 800. And a big problem is built in flashes create red eye,especially in a dark situation. I would like to hang the person who designed this system first. I can say. I have never seen a red eye reduction system that works.
This friend who ask you to do his sister wedding will catch a lot of grief if this wedding does not turn out well and I have seen it create bad feelings between friends.
If you want to do weddings I would recommend you do several things to allow you you to do a satisfactory job. Equipment: The consumer grade SLR can work most times if you add some additional equipment to your photo inventory. I would get a fast normal lens. Say an AF 50MM f1.4 and shoot most of my shots with it. Most major brands of cameras have a lens like this and its a good investment. Because it's 3 or 4 f. stops faster it will focus better in low light. Get an off camera flash with an output of at least 100 watts. I use Vivitar 285 and have used 283. I like the big head of the 285. Buy a flash bracket. You can get one that will allow you to use the camera in the horizontal and vertical positions and allow the flash to be centered directly above the lens. This bracket will solve the red eye problems because it get the flash head away from the lens. Pick a film you like and stay with it. If you mix Kodak and Fuji film on a job they will look different. They have different characteristics. I like Kodak Portra 160 NC for wedding. I find its more neutral in its gray tones and produces white wedding dresses. Fuji makes great film but it can go a little green in the shadows and add a green cast to the whites. An 81A filter will solve the excess green if you want to shoot the Fuji. Portra 400 NC works well but makes grainer enlargements. IMPORTANT: If your camera has a electronic shutter I would get a Wein safe syc. I burned up two new cameras before I became aware syc voltage. I discuss this in a later installment. Finally, I would buy a good flash meter. I use a Minolta IV. This is the best investment I think you can make after you buy a camera.
I plan to go into more detail in later installments. I'm shooting photos of my rig and will show how I shoot. You may find it in interesting or you may already know everything I plan to cover at a later date. Marshall Thurman
Randall Ainsworth - 04 Sep 2003 16:44 GMT Still sounds like amateur equipment to me. Boy, nothing like 35mm weddings with dinky strobes on the camera.
Al Denelsbeck - 05 Sep 2003 07:18 GMT > Still sounds like amateur equipment to me. Boy, nothing like 35mm > weddings with dinky strobes on the camera. Several months back, I shot alongside a professional wedding photographer. He was using his Bronica MF rig with a Metz bare-bulb flash. I was using my dinky Canon Elan IIe and 380 EX flash, probably about 1/4 the power of the Metz.
Funny, the E-TTL flash of my Canon did an effortless job of exposing the subject with a well-lit background. The other guy's shots produced nice white faces floating in total darkness, often starting at their hairline. The same kind of photos you see from point-n-shoots.
Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far, far better ;-).
- Al.
 Signature To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Randall Ainsworth - 05 Sep 2003 14:46 GMT > Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far, far > better ;-). Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your 35mm...multiple lights & professional posing.
stan - 05 Sep 2003 20:07 GMT > > Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far, far > > better ;-). > > Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your > 35mm...multiple lights & professional posing. The 35mm versus hassie is independent of the light and the posing. And quality of a print (standard small print) is independent of film format. While I agree that format makes a difference in the final product. It will probably not be noticable unless blown to 11x16. And anyone who thinks that film format automatically generates better photos should spend some time around a 4x5. Lighting and set-up are the only thing that matter. But the 35mm versus xyz format is an old arguement anyway. Peace Stan Visual Arts Photography
Witheld - 05 Sep 2003 20:27 GMT > > > Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far, far > > > better ;-). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that format makes a difference in the final product. It will probably not be > noticable unless blown to 11x16.
>And anyone who thinks that film format > automatically generates better photos should spend some time around a 4x5. > Lighting and set-up are the only thing that matter. But the 35mm versus xyz > format is an old arguement anyway. Peace > Stan > Visual Arts Photography One has to learn the camera and the format of course but 4x5 is vastly better for me who has used a 45 for 17 years.
My medium format camera likewise will produce much better group photography especially for the bridal party shots where a little negative size goes along way.
Nothing beats the thirty five for candid work, but overall I would rather have my square format camera and have all the proofs going the same direction in the proof book,...it just looks more professional.
 Signature When you live next to the graveyard, you can't cry at every funeral.
Al Denelsbeck - 06 Sep 2003 10:50 GMT >> Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far, >> far >> better ;-). > > Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your > 35mm...multiple lights & professional posing. Well, Randall, I suggest you decide what side of the fence you want to be on. Last post, you were ragging on equipment. Now you're talking about technique. Which, if you were observant, you might note was the very point I just made.
But you'd be better off stowing the ego. I primarily shoot candid and photojournalism, and I think 'professional posing' is a boring and hackneyed joke. So you're welcome to bring your brick, your lights, and as many helpers as you like, and try to keep up ;-)
- Al.
 Signature To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Randall Ainsworth - 06 Sep 2003 16:17 GMT > Well, Randall, I suggest you decide what side of the fence you want > to be on. Last post, you were ragging on equipment. Now you're talking [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hackneyed joke. So you're welcome to bring your brick, your lights, and as > many helpers as you like, and try to keep up ;-) It's hardware and software.
But when you're charging people money to photograph a once-in-a-lifetime even it needs to be done professionally. That means medium format equipment, multiple lights, and professional posing and lighting. If you want to run around with a 35mm shooting candids, go right ahead. But there's no substitute for the formal bread-and-butter posing that's endured for years.
Gregory W. Blank - 06 Sep 2003 22:26 GMT > It's hardware and software. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > right ahead. But there's no substitute for the formal bread-and-butter > posing that's endured for years. For the most part true, but your speaking to a generation of people who find it difficult to commit to one marriage. Do you expect them to undersatnd class style, longeveity of product...its fast, get me to the bar, and reception fast,... so I don't have look at cousin Ernie sober.
 Signature website: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Al Denelsbeck - 07 Sep 2003 06:28 GMT > It's hardware and software. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > candids, go right ahead. But there's no substitute for the formal > bread-and-butter posing that's endured for years. You might be interested in knowing the amount of photographers I've spoken to that had "the way" to photograph. You'd probably be far less interested in knowing that not one of them agreed with any other.
The photographers that impressed me the most, and coincidentally the ones that were making the most money and hitting the new markets as they opened up, even in some cases creating the new markets, were the ones that could adapt, and experiment, and learn, and never once felt they had all the answers to such a vast discipline.
You got your niche, be happy with it. But if you think you're going to tell me how it all works, blather it all into a can and send it to me, okay? I'll try and find something to do with it once it gets here.
- Al.
 Signature To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
brougham3@yahoo.com - 06 Sep 2003 20:53 GMT >Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your >35mm...multiple lights & professional posing. I'd rather have candids shot in available light any day over fake-o posed shots.
Gregory W. Blank - 06 Sep 2003 22:22 GMT > I'd rather have candids shot in available light any day over fake-o posed > shots. Thats not always possible,....or practical. A good photographer uses studio lights in such a way that groups look natural. Ambient light is fine,...however most professional photographers use either a mix of flash and ambient or all studio light. Natural light is too problematic in every situation to be relied upon.
 Signature website: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
brougham3@yahoo.com - 07 Sep 2003 21:22 GMT >A good photographer uses >studio lights in such a way that groups look natural. I've yet to see a posed wedding group that looks natural. The posting I was responding to was one where a medium format snob was looking down his nose at 35mm. (Which I don't understand. If you're not carrying an 8x10 horseman, are you *really* a photographer? <big grin>)
Randall Ainsworth - 08 Sep 2003 06:19 GMT > I've yet to see a posed wedding group that looks natural. The posting I was > responding to was one where a medium format snob was looking down his nose > at 35mm. (Which I don't understand. If you're not carrying an 8x10 > horseman, are you *really* a photographer? <big grin>) Ever see a 16x20 made from a 35mm negative?
brougham3@yahoo.com - 09 Sep 2003 01:46 GMT >Ever see a 16x20 made from a 35mm negative? Yes. Damn good, too.
From a sheer technical perspective, it's not as good as one from a medium format, but both are nothing compared to contact prints from large format gear.
My original point and one that I still cling to is that using a Hassie doesn't automatically make posed wedding pictures with artificial light into something better. :)
Randall Ainsworth - 09 Sep 2003 03:15 GMT > My original point and one that I still cling to is that using a Hassie > doesn't automatically make posed wedding pictures with artificial light into > something better. :) I don't believe I ever said that it would.
Lynn - 28 Sep 2003 03:17 GMT I've had many done and with todays 35mm films...I have to say also "Damned Good" ones.
Lynn
> >Ever see a 16x20 made from a 35mm negative? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > doesn't automatically make posed wedding pictures with artificial light into > something better. :) Randall Ainsworth - 28 Sep 2003 05:19 GMT > I've had many done and with todays 35mm films...I have to say also "Damned > Good" ones. You amateurs are so cute.
Al Denelsbeck - 29 Sep 2003 19:42 GMT >> I've had many done and with todays 35mm films...I have to say also >> "Damned Good" ones. > > You amateurs are so cute. We can't all be arrogant egomaniacs with small minds that only follow 30-year-old advice...
- Al.
 Signature To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Randall Ainsworth - 29 Sep 2003 20:28 GMT > We can't all be arrogant egomaniacs with small minds that only follow > 30-year-old advice... I just believe in doing things right. And doing weddings on 1x1.5-inch negatives ain't it.
Al Denelsbeck - 30 Sep 2003 05:41 GMT >> We can't all be arrogant egomaniacs with small minds that only >> follow >> 30-year-old advice... > > I just believe in doing things right. And doing weddings on > 1x1.5-inch negatives ain't it. Uh huh. And this explains your being condescending and judgemental over a single post innnnnnnn, what way, exactly?
You know the post I mean. It was the one you snipped out of your reply.
But hey, knock yourself out! I'll remember your words each and every time I make money off of attitudes exactly the same as yours.
Cheers!
- Al.
 Signature To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Randall Ainsworth - 30 Sep 2003 14:32 GMT > Uh huh. And this explains your being condescending and judgemental > over a single post innnnnnnn, what way, exactly? ????
> You know the post I mean. It was the one you snipped out of your > reply. ??????
> But hey, knock yourself out! I'll remember your words each and every > time I make money off of attitudes exactly the same as yours. Keep doing those 35mm weddings. I'll bet those 16x20s look great. And leave the flash on the camera while you're at it.
Jeff Zawrotny - 30 Sep 2003 20:09 GMT <SNIP>
> Keep doing those 35mm weddings. I'll bet those 16x20s look great. And > leave the flash on the camera while you're at it. Not sure what sort of market research you've been doing, Randall, but most people (especially brides and grooms) I talk to find a 16"x20 wedding portrait a bit over the top. People aren't that narcissistic.
And if bigger negs always equal better, why stop at 2 1/4 inch negatives? Surely your customers laugh at you when you try to tell them your Hassleblad is better than an 8x10 Linhof? Last I knew, 8x10 knocked the doors off 6x6. And don't try to tell me convenience... you don't give that benefit to 35mm.
I think we all get the point that medium format provides sharper/less grainy enlargements than 35mm, Randall. But to say you can't be a "professional" photographer if you shoot 35mm is silly. C'mon. That's like saying you can't be a professional violinist unless you play on a Stradivarius.
Nobody cares what brand of paint a painter uses or what brand of chisel a sculptor uses.
Do us a favor and get over your big, bad, scary-talented self.
Randall Ainsworth - 30 Sep 2003 20:16 GMT > Do us a favor and get over your big, bad, scary-talented self. You amateurs just don't understand...probably never will.
Jeff Zawrotny - 30 Sep 2003 22:17 GMT > > Do us a favor and get over your big, bad, scary-talented self. > > You amateurs just don't understand...probably never will. Aren't you retired?
Randall Ainsworth - 30 Sep 2003 22:54 GMT > Aren't you retired? I no longer do portrait photography for money. But I'm looking to get back into photography at least as a partial living. It may involve people photography, might not...don't know at this point.
Retired? More like...in transition.
Mariusz - 02 Oct 2003 14:17 GMT Any website with your photos?
Mariusz
U?ytkownik Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> w wiadomooci do grup dyskusyjnych napisa?:300920031454431233%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> > Aren't you retired? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Retired? More like...in transition. Randall Ainsworth - 02 Oct 2003 14:40 GMT > Any website with your photos? No portraits, just pictorials:
http://users.techline.com/randya
Mariusz - 04 Oct 2003 23:32 GMT thanks nice shots, however after all the discussion I would expect something shot in medium format rather :-)
Mariusz
U?ytkownik Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> w wiadomooci do grup dyskusyjnych napisa?:021020030640385209%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> > Any website with your photos? > > No portraits, just pictorials: > > http://users.techline.com/randya Randall Ainsworth - 05 Oct 2003 00:28 GMT > nice shots, however after all the discussion I would expect something shot > in medium format rather :-) I just switched to digital a few months ago. Doubt that I'll ever use film again. I have lots of medium format stuff from years past, but don't have a scanner.
ARoseStone - 21 Oct 2003 08:26 GMT >Keep doing those 35mm weddings. I'll bet those 16x20s look great. Yeah, we all know how popular those 16x29 wedding albums are these days. Added value as the bride gets a workout as she shows off her wedding images.
sigh. Another dinosaur roars his death rattle.
Randall Ainsworth - 21 Oct 2003 16:53 GMT > Yeah, we all know how popular those 16x29 wedding albums are these days. Added > value as the bride gets a workout as she shows off her wedding images. > > sigh. Another dinosaur roars his death rattle. There's more to selling weddings than just albums. 35mm for weddings is just unprofessional...always has been and always will be. Keep that flash on the camera though...that always looks good too.
Bruce MacNeil - 21 Oct 2003 18:43 GMT > > Yeah, we all know how popular those 16x29 wedding albums are these days. Added > > value as the bride gets a workout as she shows off her wedding images. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is just unprofessional...always has been and always will be. Keep that > flash on the camera though...that always looks good too. That is untrue.
KBob - 04 Feb 2004 19:06 GMT >> Yeah, we all know how popular those 16x29 wedding albums are these days. Added >> value as the bride gets a workout as she shows off her wedding images. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >is just unprofessional...always has been and always will be. Keep that >flash on the camera though...that always looks good too. I agree with this, but only if you're talking about film. I've yet to see really decent 16X20 enlargements from the usual film types.
Am getting significantly better results with 35mm (digital), using a Kodak 14n. Most certainly the resolution is there, and shooting in RAW mode permits capturing about 10 stops of exposure latitude, plus the ability to color correct even before bringing the image into Photoshop for touch-up. There is absolutely no problem whatever in producing excellent, sharp 16X20s using the Epson 2200 pigment-based printer. I'll admit, however, that the 14n winds up being bigger and heavier than any Hassleblad or Bronica around, but I'll never--I repeat NEVER return to film.
Gregory W. Blank - 08 Sep 2003 21:24 GMT > I've yet to see a posed wedding group that looks natural. The posting I was > responding to was one where a medium format snob was looking down his nose > at 35mm. (Which I don't understand. If you're not carrying an 8x10 > horseman, are you *really* a photographer? <big grin>) I have plenty of them. I prefer my 8x10 Tachihara for field work....a Horseman is good for the studio.
There are some advantages to 35mm except for group photos, you will see a big improvement when you go to 8x10 especially when your working very far back in the church to get 16 people in the shot, for me a square image was the logical choice as I stated it looks better in the book to have all the images going the same way... unless of course you advocate shooting all the shoots on 35mm horz or vert? There is one more advantage to medium format, 70mm long roll film magazines no reloading.....all images sequenced, drawback $1,200.
 Signature website: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Randall Ainsworth - 07 Sep 2003 02:19 GMT > >Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your > >35mm...multiple lights & professional posing. > > I'd rather have candids shot in available light any day over fake-o posed > shots. Whatever floats your boat.
Mariusz - 06 Sep 2003 10:14 GMT Never heard of any bare bulb METZ. Do you rememeber the model?
Mariusz
U?ytkownik Al Denelsbeck <news@wadingin.net> w wiadomo?ci do grup dyskusyjnych napisa?:Xns93ED175E86AEsandalsatwadinginnet@65.32.1.8...
> > Still sounds like amateur equipment to me. Boy, nothing like 35mm > > weddings with dinky strobes on the camera. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below > Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net Ektarkid - 13 Sep 2003 17:59 GMT OK...now for my 2 cents worth..... Marshall,you bring out some good points.....most people when they buy a new camera tend to buy what I call "wimp-o-matic" flash units. When I was doing weddings I hunted around and found a nice used Rollei E-36RE and spare for it. I soon designed a 12 volt power pack for it as the batteries for the Rollei are both overpriced and crappy. (one camera repairman summed up the E-36RE as.."Great flash unit...piss poor battery design") I found that anything with a guide # under 160 with ISO 100 film doesn't have enough power or recycles too slow for use at a wedding, I later switched to a Agfatronic 643CS (GN of 220 with ISO 100) and a Sunpak 622 super as backup. My feeling is that if you're gonna do a wedding for a friend,buy,rent or borrow a flash with enough power to do it right. As per lenses...well...again...buy,rent or borrow....a lot of camera stores have pro grade lenses they will rent. If you've got a older MF camera,many of the stores have Tamron SP lenses for rent...I own a Tamron SP 28-80 that I've used for many a wedding and I've never been disapointed with the sharpness on any of the pictures I've taken with it. Film....well,sorry but I'm a Fuji man....I've always had good luck with it and I'm gonna stick with what works. As for those folks who scream..."Ya gotta use medium format !"....Face facts,guys....most wedding pictures never,ever get enlarged past 8 by 10. Yeah, the Hassy might make a better tool if your going to blow the group shot up to 16 by 20..but how many times has that happened? I've always had a feeling that a lot of guys use medium format because they feel it "looks more professional" The one time I had a couple that wanted a big enlargement for their new house.....a 40 by 50 to go over the mantel no less...I used my Speed Graphic and shot 8 sheets and charged them just a little extra for it. ( I later found out that the 40 by 50 enlargement and matting and framing cost them MORE than I charged for the wedding!) To me, the most important thing is to approach as if you WERE a pro..that means you have backups for your camera ( I always carried 3 cameras) PLENTY of film...about twice what you think you'll use,extra sync cords (ever notice the lil bastards always fail at the worst times ?...that's why I carry 5), your main flash and 3 sets of batteries for it and the backup flash and extra batteries for it. And don't leave the house without the most important thing......a pro attitude. A pro attitude mean's you've checked every damn piece of equipment 3 times...you've made sure all the batteries are charged,all the cameras sync with flash,everything is in your camera bag or bags,you know where the church and the receptioh hall is,and you've driven there just to make sure you know how to get their,your cell phone is charged and on and somebody in the wedding party knows the number just in case. When I did weddings for money I did all the above plus carried an emergency kit with a sewing kit,first aid kit(and yes,I had to use it a few times) and change for pay phones and tampons and panty liners..you'd be amazed how many brides get so stressed out that their period starts early....it other words...I came prepared for nearly anything. That pro attitude is one of the most important parts of your tool kit....it means you pay attention to what your doing..that means no drinking...no flirting with the bridesmaids. I see it as Attitude 40%...photography skills 30% people skills 30% Ok..that's my 2 cents worth
> I've been getting so much E-mail about this I have decided to go > and start. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > later date. > Marshall Thurman Randall Ainsworth - 13 Sep 2003 19:18 GMT Can't agree completely. Weddings demand medium format. You can tella 35mm even enlarged to 8x10. I used 2 Hasselblads (one manual, one EL) and for many years used a Norman 200b with 2 lights...later went to 2 6" Photogenic Flashmasters. Green box film? No way...the Great Yellow Father all the way.
Started formals 2 hours before the ceremony...no formals (except cake shots) afterwards. Unobtrusive photos during the ceremony with manual Hasselblad on a tripod from the back of the church (switched lenses).
Ektarkid - 13 Sep 2003 19:45 GMT Try getting any of these modern brides dressed and ready 2 hours before the wedding ! I've never seen a wedding take place on time. And many of the churches are running so many weddings now,it's like a marriage assembly line..ie,you've got 1 hour for the ceramony and that's IT ! And I don't agree about the 8 by 10's either...... Also,Randall....where's a non-pro gonna be able to find Normans or Flashmasters ? And as to the film...I had large problems with wedding dresses going blue tinted till I switched to Fuji. I found out that Fuji has a anti-scratch coating that has a UV absorbing componet(sp) in it. Also,you're overlooking cost...I figure 2 Hassie's with lenses and backs is gonna run 4K even used. And Norman's don't grow on trees either....
> Can't agree completely. Weddings demand medium format. You can > tella 35mm even enlarged to 8x10. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shots) afterwards. Unobtrusive photos during the ceremony with manual > Hasselblad on a tripod from the back of the church (switched lenses). Randall Ainsworth - 13 Sep 2003 21:46 GMT I would never suggest that non pros photograph weddings. Do it for a kick if you're a guest, but not as the "official" photographer. I can tell you dozens of horror stories of ruined weddings through the years.
You don't have to use Hasselblads...a TLR will work fine...much quieter too. But there's no substitute for medium format for this type of work. Either you're gonna do it right or you're not.
Lighting...you don't have to have a Norman or Photogenic setup. But to stick just one light on the camera and fire away...pretty amateurish.
Doing the formals afterwards results in pictures where the participants look haggard. You're too rushed afterwards and people are in a hurry to get drunk. Doing the job right takes time.
And film, well...everyone has their preferences. I photographed 700-800 weddings through the years on Kodak film never had any color balance problems. I did some tests with Fuji and the damned stuff was almost as green as the box it came in.
No1inparticular - 14 Sep 2003 02:26 GMT > And film, well...everyone has their preferences. I photographed > 700-800 weddings through the years on Kodak film never had any color > balance problems. I did some tests with Fuji and the damned stuff was > almost as green as the box it came in. Likewise with Fuji NPH. Magenta, the film base is magenta and a good lab or printer can easily get it right, I know because I print most of my own color enlargements.
Ektarkid - 15 Sep 2003 15:53 GMT Yeah well, I can tell you about the bride who's so-called pro photographer had not shown up by 30 minutes before the wedding and when called told her he'd booked another wedding for that same day that paid more so he wasn't showing up for hers. I can also tell you about the so-called pro from my former hometown in NJ who had a habit of showing up drunk for weddings and getting drunker at the reception. Randall, you may be a pro,but a lot of the guys who are "pros" with a studio,etc aren't "pros" in the way they treat customers. I may not be a pro by your standards,but I never showed up late,always treated the bride and groom with respect (something I've seen more than a few pros fail to do) and never drank while I was working and always delivered the goods.
> I would never suggest that non pros photograph weddings. Do it for a > kick if you're a guest, but not as the "official" photographer. I can [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > balance problems. I did some tests with Fuji and the damned stuff was > almost as green as the box it came in. Gregory W. Blank - 15 Sep 2003 20:51 GMT This in my book makes you alot better.
> Yeah well, I can tell you about the bride who's so-called pro photographer > had not shown up by 30 minutes before the wedding and when called told her [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > few pros fail to do) and never drank while I was working and always > delivered the goods.
 Signature website: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Randall Ainsworth - 15 Sep 2003 23:25 GMT Or how about the bride who went around the reception with currency pinned to her dress - some sort of tacky ethnic custom. Or the bride's dress catching on fire when friends are trying to take cake pictures (fortunately I got mine first). Or the bridesmaid who's so drunk she falls down dancing in front of everybody with her legs WIDE open showing her charms to the world.
Oh yeah...just another day in the life of a wedding photographer
Or the photog (certainly not me) who decides to hold the wire to his exension flash in his mouth, forgetting there are capacitors in the head :-)
Generic Eric - 16 Sep 2003 02:23 GMT That's gotta hurt.
> Or how about the bride who went around the reception with currency > pinned to her dress - some sort of tacky ethnic custom. Or the bride's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > exension flash in his mouth, forgetting there are capacitors in the > head :-) Ektarkid - 15 Sep 2003 16:08 GMT Hey,Randall, I 've got a question for you.... Is it just me or have you have you noticed more rude and/or crude behavior at receptions by guests in the last few years? Twice in the last few years,I've had to breakup fights that were starting(generally, I just set the flash to manual and fire it into the offending parties face at point blank range...a guy who can't see for 10 minutes isn't so much of a problem). I've seen everything from a female guest in a mini skirt with no panties to a brides younger brother getting drunk and dancing without his shirt, to guest that arrive at the reception and have finished 5 drinks before the bride and groom even have arrived. I swear, after watching some of these people, I'm hiring bouncers when I get married.
> I would never suggest that non pros photograph weddings. Do it for a > kick if you're a guest, but not as the "official" photographer. I can [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > balance problems. I did some tests with Fuji and the damned stuff was > almost as green as the box it came in. Randall Ainsworth - 15 Sep 2003 16:29 GMT > Hey,Randall, > I 've got a question for you.... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I swear, after watching some of these people, I'm hiring bouncers when I > get married. I haven't done a wedding since Sept. of 1995. But I could write a book with all of the crazy stuff I've seen. Remember a few where the bride and groom must have ripped one off while everyone was waiting at the reception :-). Did one shot of bridesmaids catching the bouquet...and caught one bridesmaid as she "slipped" out of her dress as she was jumping. Another time I was leaving a reception and noticed a glow down at the end of the parking lot...it was the bride & groom smoking a joint.
Don't know about rudeness but it wouldn't surprise me. But I'm out in Washington and we're more mellow here.
No1inparticular - 14 Sep 2003 02:31 GMT > As for those folks who scream..."Ya gotta use medium format !"....Face > facts,guys....most wedding pictures never,ever get enlarged past 8 by 10. > Yeah, the Hassy might make a better tool if your going to blow the group > shot up to 16 by 20..but how many times has that happened? 2-1/4 square is better because your not flipping the camera and all the proof go the same way, I shoot all weddings on 400 asa film. An 8x10 using 35mm 400 film is grainy and less sharp.
For the most part all else I can agree with.
|
|
|