These days it seems all that's required to be a wedding photographer is a basic DSLR, a couple of "kit" lenses, a template based website and the ability to locate the subject(s) somewhere in the view finder. Abilities such as lighting, composition, creativeness nor knowledge of how to run a business not required.
These are just snapshots taken with a hefty camera. If I'd handed my camera on auto and a 70-200 2.8 IS to the bloke next door (who hasn't mentioned being into photography) and told him to shoot a wedding I'd be surprised if he came back with anything worse than this.
Were you just a guest at this wedding taking snaps? Why not dress up a couple of friends as a bride and groom and generate some more creative material?
I'm just curious why the B&G changed into Beauty and the Beast outfits. Was that part of their wedding? Were you the main photographer at this wedding? I like your posing, but the lighting technique needs some work.
As for "anyone can be a wedding photographer", I don't think it's true. Some people just don't have an eye for composition/posing/framing/light/direction/action.
letenele wrote:
As for "anyone can be a wedding photographer", I don't think it's true. Some people just don't have an eye for composition/posing/framing/light/direction/action.
Doesn't stop 'em, though.
I mean, why not open a smoothie or milkshake bar, a sandwich service, a carpet cleaning franchise, an ice cream van, etc. if you're looking for a basic business idea that doesn't need much specialist skill?
The main thing I noticed is that there's only one photo of the set where both of them are even vaguely looking towards the camera, I don't know if you were just one of a lot of people with a camera around them? And were these really taken on a 1Ds III There's a lot of basic knowledge missing for photos taken on Canon's flagship and most expensive camera, 2 and 3 needed fill in flash, their faces are both covered in shadows, and all the images are underexposed to various degrees.
There's no reason why you can't BECOME a wedding photographer, but to be brutally honest, if you take bookings now, you might please some of the couples, and I'm sure you're more than capable of taking some superb photos, but somewhere along the the line (and probably not too far along it) you will upset someone. You need to increase your knowledge and work on your technique a fair bit.
Sorry if that all comes across a little harsh, but I'm trying to offer you some constructive critisism rather than saying "these are cr@p, why does every nOOb with a good camera think they're a photographer?"
Mirek,
There is honestly no "trying" to it. Trying to be a wedding photographer has disaster written all over it. Remember that the bride and groom are expecting memories from their day. There is not a re-shoot or if you mess up their shots there is no way of ever getting that day back.
However, having said that, there are good and bad ways of going about it. I would suggest being an assistant and trying your craft that way if you think you might be interested. I think that is why so many people on here bash questions like this. If you had presented these photos and said something along the lines...
I am interested in wedding photography. I was recently at an event and would like some CC on my shots. Would anyone have any suggestions for becoming a second shooter or how to improve? I am guessing the responses would have been totally different.
I would hate to think of a bride and groom paying for the shots you have presented. While they are of a wedding...bride and groom...flowers...etc. They are really not a whole lot different than what someone with a P/S would take. From your exif it looks like you are not the most comfortable with your settings in camera. This doesn't fit well with wedding photography. Best of luck to you...
Apart from photographic skills, there is the skill needed to run a business. Unless you just want to shoot for someone and be done. Otherwise you'll have to figure out who (if not you) will handle the business aspect.
These were taken on a 1D2 with what looks like an 85L, 24L, and 70-200L. None of them really stand out to me. I wouldn't be happy if these were my wedding photos. The only decent one is #5, but even that could have used slightly more dramatic lighting and PP.
Agree with bacilonur....even a simple levels adjustment would drastically improve #5, and that's such basic PP that if you didn't think to do that, you're not ready to sell your services IMO.
You can be whatever you want to be. The question is how long can you be a wedding photog.Your talent at the craft and business savy will determine the answer.
The market weeds out the good, the bad, and the ugly.
This comment is directed less to Mirek and more to those who responded to his modest query. I have no dog in this fight, because I have no ambitions to join those of you who have responded to the sacred calling of "wedding photographer." That said, I do look at this forum quite frequently--probably because I get a perverse kick out of the venom that results whenever someone dares to think he could scale those same hallowed walls. Frankly, if I were to need a wedding photographer, I would be a lot more pleased with the personal attention of someone like Mirek than from those of you who think you have to tilt your cameras and pose people precariously over precipices and set up gatherings for brides with more money than sense to destroy the gowns that would easily buy someone a car. Not only have I read the vicious critiques many of you offer to those with ambitions in the wedding business; I have also read snide comments about a bride's big nose/thick neck/chunky waist. And then of course there are the remarks about how the priest shouldn't dare to think he is in charge of the sacramental ceremony you all seem to think was invented to showcase your ability to exploit the desires of wealthy brides and grooms and momzillas (yes, I have read far too many of your catty posts) and in the process think you are creating art.
Mirek, keep at it if you don't mind stepping in all that . . . well, you know. I'll bet the bride and groom pictured above were delighted with your efforts. All my best to you.
P.S. I would like to add one thing: I mostly look at the Nikon, landscape, abstract, and black and white forums here at FM, and I have posted photos there from time to time. In those areas, everyone seems genuinely eager to encourage and even assist those who frankly admit that they are novices--or even that they are old hands whio want to improve. Why is it that the wedding forum inspires such anger and negativity?
VickiB wrote:
This comment is directed less to Mirek and more to those who responded to his modest query. I have no dog in this fight, because I have no ambitions to join those of you who have responded to the sacred calling of "wedding photographer." That said, I do look at this forum quite frequently--probably because I get a kick out of the venom that results whenever someone dares to think he could scale those same hallowed walls. Frankly, if I were to need a wedding photographer, I would be a lot more pleased with the personal attention of someone like Mirek than from those of you who think you have to tilt your cameras and pose people precariously over precipices and set up gatherings for brides with more money than sense to destroy the gowns that would easily buy someone a car. Not only have I read the vicious critiques many of you offer to those with ambitions in the wedding business; I have also read snide comments about a bride's big nose/thick neck/chunky waist. And then of course there are the remarks about how the priest shouldn't dare to think he is in charge of the sacramental ceremony you all seem to think was invented to showcase your ability to exploit the desires of wealthy brides and grooms and momzillas (yes, I have read far too many of your catty posts) and in the process think you are creating art.
Mirek, keep at it if you don't mind stepping in all that . . . well, you know. I'll bet the bride and groom pictured above were delighted with your efforts. All my best to you....Show more →
AMEN!!!
Mirek,
really all that matters is that the B&G are happy with the pictures and are happy to pay you. It's really up to you to determine what you think your work is worth. Is it worth $5000...maybe not...but as long as you're having fun and the B&G are having fun and are happy...then go for.
i'd suggest learning a bit about your camera and some simple photoshop stuff. take a look at some other photos out there and think about what you like and don't like about them. You've obviously got a solid camera, now just keep shooting. one suggestion is that portrait type work, usually shallower depth of field is desired. People who aren't photographers will love you for blurring out the background.
best of luck to you. shooting weddings really freak me out.
And I don't mean that to be sarcastic. There's a glut of so-called "wedding photographers" these days which are undermining certain segments of the market. If one is a moderately priced wedding photographer these days, it's tough to make a go of it. People are doing shoot and burns for 500 bucks, and people are beginning to think that's normal. Even though most of these amateurs go by the wayside when they find out wedding photography involves work, there are two more to take their place. Established photogs are really feeling the pinch and are having to diversify to stay afloat. With the perceived recession, it isn't a good time to become a photographer.
mirek wrote:
I wasn't a wedding photographer on that shoot. There was an appointed Japanese "pro" photographer. I took opportunity to take some shots, as the B asked me - as a backup. They are more candid shots than wedding shots. I was working hard and fast I remember, following B&G and the other photographer. It was crazy I remember, and I should have slowed down and focussed on what I like doing the best. But I guess I thought that the B was serious about the "backup". It wasn't the best way to shoot a wedding - trying to avoid being in the way of the official photographer, and B&G. So - enough of the background. BTW - I shared all my shots with the B&G and their family (sent a DVD, and put together a website) and they enjoyed them a lot more than the shots produced by the official wedding photographer. For free ...Show more →
Your above account explains why in all the couples photos the bride is looking in one direction while the groom looks in another. The bride was looking at you while the groom was looking at the hired photographer. Not good. At all.
Let's hope the hired photographer does not have the reverse problem with his photos.
FWIW most professional photographers would not tolerate your kind of intrusion on the wedding day photography. If the bride specifically asked for it then she has herself to blame.
FWIW most professional photographers would not tolerate your kind of intrusion on the wedding day photography. If the bride specifically asked for it then she has herself to blame.
Good point. I'd feel uncomfortable if someone asked me to be a 'back up' for the paid photographer and only take a discreet camera to weddings for me own snaps as a big beast causes confusion. If they're your friends and are trying to help you out by letting you take some pictures for your book, far better to meet up weeks later and do some portfolio shots then.
