- Messages
- 2,826
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To get it all right in camera is a tall order with no editing at all ! Or a rip off
Affording to become a wedding photographer...!
- Thread starter Devoted Lens
- Start date
If that's what was agreed in the contract then so be it. Not the usual expected practise but if it works...
OP
- Messages
- 50
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I do appreciate the cautious comments re doing it for free, but to expect someone to pay me when I have no portfolio to speak of is a bit extreme in my view, especially when the process is as rewarding for me as it is for them (I get to build up my portfolio which will then enable me to start charging in the future). They are getting married in Canada and no family or friends are invited, they're having no tog in attendance and doing everything on a shoestring. It is when they come back to the UK, some two months later they're having a reception of sorts, and they have already publicly stated they're not having a tog as they don't want the expense. I won't be putting a contract in place as in all fairness they are just happy with anything they get for free, however I will of course send them an email reminding them that there is no guarantee that they will get any decent or usable images and that equipment may fail etc, and get them to reply acknowledging they are content with that.
I have taken into account the various views on here and have definitely decided to downgrade my choice of camera, torn between a few models but the Canon EOS 6D looks pretty good, and could happily spend a bit more than that.
I have taken into account the various views on here and have definitely decided to downgrade my choice of camera, torn between a few models but the Canon EOS 6D looks pretty good, and could happily spend a bit more than that.
- Messages
- 2,638
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You should at least get them to sign a model release form so that you have freedom of action for the images you create.
As for gear, the tog that shot my youngest daughter's wedding used a 5DII and 24-105L most of the time and produced outstanding work.
OP
- Messages
- 50
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I guess it comes back to the same old saying - it's not the camera, nor the subject, but the person behind the camera that makes the photo.
- Messages
- 25,349
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
There is no need for a model release in UK law.
There is a requirement for permission to use images commissioned by the subject.
Model releases and weddings would be ridiculous, even in places they’re required, do you think the photographer is actually getting a release from all guests?
A bride can’t legally sign away the rights of the chief bridesmaid or auntie Mabel.
- Messages
- 2,638
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I take your point Phil and you may well be right on the UK legal requirement front. I certainly agree on the practicality of getting a signed release from all the guests.
I was simply passing on advice I received from a photography course that I attended last autumn. I thought it was a bit OTT, but the folks giving the course (one of which was from the US, so therein may be the 'problem') were pretty firm about this point. However, I also notice that RPS have a model release form available, which seemed to me to reinforce the need.
My thinking with regards to the OP was that if he is building a portfolio of images that he may wish to make commercial use of, he wants to avoid any comeback from the subjects in his photos.
If this is all b*****ks, then please accept my apologies.
My mother was a successful pro wedding photographer for over 30 yrs. Her equipment list was as follows.
1 x Mamiya C330 Manual TLR
1 x Mamiya 80mm lens (50mm equivelant on full frame)
1 x Metz Hammer head flash
1 x Seconic light meter (very rarely used)
1 x Sturdy box to stand on (She is sub 5 ft tall)
1 x Back up of the above in the car (called on maybe twice across the years)
Now i realise things have changed considerably since she packed up in the mid 90’s along with expectations and style/content, but my point is you really don’t need masses of high end gear to shoot a wedding. And certainly not when starting out, as it will be just something extra to worry about........ An ability to herd cats might be more useful
1 x Mamiya C330 Manual TLR
1 x Mamiya 80mm lens (50mm equivelant on full frame)
1 x Metz Hammer head flash
1 x Seconic light meter (very rarely used)
1 x Sturdy box to stand on (She is sub 5 ft tall)
1 x Back up of the above in the car (called on maybe twice across the years)
Now i realise things have changed considerably since she packed up in the mid 90’s along with expectations and style/content, but my point is you really don’t need masses of high end gear to shoot a wedding. And certainly not when starting out, as it will be just something extra to worry about........ An ability to herd cats might be more useful
- Messages
- 883
- Edit My Images
- No
Jeez.. I too remember having that exact same kit at one point when I started out in my teens then moved onto blads some of which I'm sure is in a box in the attic..It wasn't fear of the kit failing it was the rolls of film jamming in the processor or getting fogged in the dark bag when I came back that worried me..how did I ever manage...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,105
- Name
- Alistair
- Edit My Images
- No
The first wedding I was second shooter for I took my Sony a350, a very similar camera to yours @Devoted Lens . I had a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, Minolta 50mm f1.7 and Minolta 70-210 f4 (aka the Beercan) but the person I was shooting with offered me the option of using the spare 5D Mk2 and sharing their lenses (24-70 f2.8L, 50 1.2L and 70-200 2.8L).
I did use my Sony and got plenty of decent images, but using the 5D Mk2 convinced me that I wanted to move to Canon (which I did a few months later).
The (older) Sony Alphas are good (loved the live view AF) so it's worth trying out your Sony at a wedding as second shooter and see how things work out.
You don't say what lenses you have. If you have a couple of good zooms, you may be alright. If you already have a good set of primes, and are happy with primes great, but unless you have two bodies at a wedding, there will come a moment when you have the wide prime on and need the long prime and find you miss the moment. Hence various suggestions of 2 bodies and a 35mm/85mm combo.
There is a problem with the older Sony DSLRs and older Sony/Minolta a-mount lenses than not all of them have focus motors built in, therefore relying on the motor in the body to drive the focus. This is generally slower, I've experienced this myself. You can end up missing focus in an event because the motor can't keep up with the action. (Sony e-mount doesn't have this issue as all lenses have their own focus motors).
I would recommend trying your Sony kit as a second shooter, but if you are going to swap to Canon (or any other make) before the big family wedding, I recommend you do it way in advance so you can get to grips fully with the kit.
If you want to dip your toe in the Canon water, a second hand 6D would set you back £700ish, then add either a secondhand Sigma/Tamron 24-70 2.8 for £500ish or a Canon 85 1.8 (£200) and a Canon 35mm f2 (£350) or Sigma art 35 (£450).
You can shoot a whole wedding on a 24-70 without changing lenses. Forget the macro. You'll pull it out for the "ring shot" but it won't get used otherwise. A macro ring will do a good job or you may find one of the other lenses gets you close enough.
Forget the 70-200 f2.8 unless you really have £1200+ and want to lug an extra 1.5kg around. Besides if the venue is small, you won't need the length.
I did use my Sony and got plenty of decent images, but using the 5D Mk2 convinced me that I wanted to move to Canon (which I did a few months later).
The (older) Sony Alphas are good (loved the live view AF) so it's worth trying out your Sony at a wedding as second shooter and see how things work out.
You don't say what lenses you have. If you have a couple of good zooms, you may be alright. If you already have a good set of primes, and are happy with primes great, but unless you have two bodies at a wedding, there will come a moment when you have the wide prime on and need the long prime and find you miss the moment. Hence various suggestions of 2 bodies and a 35mm/85mm combo.
There is a problem with the older Sony DSLRs and older Sony/Minolta a-mount lenses than not all of them have focus motors built in, therefore relying on the motor in the body to drive the focus. This is generally slower, I've experienced this myself. You can end up missing focus in an event because the motor can't keep up with the action. (Sony e-mount doesn't have this issue as all lenses have their own focus motors).
I would recommend trying your Sony kit as a second shooter, but if you are going to swap to Canon (or any other make) before the big family wedding, I recommend you do it way in advance so you can get to grips fully with the kit.
If you want to dip your toe in the Canon water, a second hand 6D would set you back £700ish, then add either a secondhand Sigma/Tamron 24-70 2.8 for £500ish or a Canon 85 1.8 (£200) and a Canon 35mm f2 (£350) or Sigma art 35 (£450).
You can shoot a whole wedding on a 24-70 without changing lenses. Forget the macro. You'll pull it out for the "ring shot" but it won't get used otherwise. A macro ring will do a good job or you may find one of the other lenses gets you close enough.
Forget the 70-200 f2.8 unless you really have £1200+ and want to lug an extra 1.5kg around. Besides if the venue is small, you won't need the length.
- Messages
- 3
- Name
- xiaoqing1382
- Edit My Images
- No
I can see it
Some are looking through the rosy glass
Wait until it begins to swell or lawyers letters come in
Some are looking through the rosy glass
Wait until it begins to swell or lawyers letters come in
- Messages
- 3,860
- Name
- Allen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mr OP , you are a brave man , I dipped my toe the the wedding photograph market about 10 years ago , I soon pulled it out
Pressure , 100's of experts at each wedding telling you what to do , also standing in front of you taking phone images ! , I set up the photos and was last to get the photo , Mums , sisters ,family all telling you what they wanted , I found it very stressful , Sort of knocked the stuffing out of me and took away my love / like of photography
If you are strong willed and can take full control of 100 + people for the day then yes give it a go and I wish you success
Pressure , 100's of experts at each wedding telling you what to do , also standing in front of you taking phone images ! , I set up the photos and was last to get the photo , Mums , sisters ,family all telling you what they wanted , I found it very stressful , Sort of knocked the stuffing out of me and took away my love / like of photography
If you are strong willed and can take full control of 100 + people for the day then yes give it a go and I wish you success
- Messages
- 563
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
1] Absolutely. You need all those lenses. Or at least a slightly different combination. And totally ditch that Sony and get a proper camera. And don't forget you need backups of everything. Two cameras, two flashguns and so on. Everything.
2] The old adage is that you need to spend money to make money and as long as you really are a good professional photographer then its actually not that difficult to recoup your investments. Personally I spent about 10K when I started up, and made several mistakes in that I brought cheap gear, lighting and stuff and needed to replace it soon after.
People going pro who fail largely do because they are actually nowhere as good as they think they are and just simply don't get the work.
And there are also people who fail in business because they charge such pathetically low rates, rates which barely even covers their expenses.
Lets take a reality check with wedding photography.
Once you engage in a dialogue with a couple you'll probably spend an hour or two one way or another with email exchanges / telephone calls. And then they'll want to see you. You drive there an hour, spend an hour or two going through all the details and a hour driving back. You may not even get the booking. But assuming you do, you then have to go through all the schedule, list requested photos, have a plan of where you need to be etc. that's just cost you another hour or so.
At this point you've used up the best part of a day.
And cost you money in petrol. Plus initially its cost you lots of money buying portfolio albums, having prints made etc. Oh and let not forget your insurance as well. All upfront costs.
You then shoot the wedding, that's another day, plus possibly going between 3 venues, more expenses on petrol, plus you can eat your way through £10 of batteries easily.
Next you need to go through, sort, post process and edit the photos. On an all day wedding even for the best, quickest and most experienced of us this is so easily 2-3 days. Don't be surprised if this takes you longer. 5 days or more.
Then they want an album, which you've agreed on. You need to spend another day at least laying all that out.
And so on, This wedding has just taken you 6 days or more of total work, probably already owes you £70 in basic expenses like fuel and batteries + spending out £100.00 on a wedding album and other bits. You want custom boxes for you discs? Memory sticks to supply the images on? Even posting that out may be £10.00
So you are easily taking 6 days work, and £200.00 of expenses, and there are muppets out there charging £300 - £500 for a wedding. If you do that how do you ever expect to make profit? Live and pay for kit.
Even charging a £1000.00 - expenses = £800 / 6 days = £133.00 a day. Not good money at all for a skilled professional.
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Be different to the others and shoot film! Cheap equipment and a Niche position in a crowded market. There is also far less editing to be done
Last edited:
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Be different to the others and shoot film! Cheap equipment and a Niche position in a crowded market. There is also far less editing to be done
hahaha
D
Deleted member 21335
Guest
I can only think that this is funny because it isn't that different and there are quite a few people doing it, including myself last year.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
I can only think that this is funny because it isn't that different and there are quite a few people doing it, including myself last year.
Wedding photogrpahy is for the happy couple not the photographer.. what do the B&G get out of you using film.. in the real world where they want an album and moreso in this day and age files...
- Messages
- 1,576
- Edit My Images
- Yes
50 yers ago I helped a friend who was a wedding tog. I was his driver. I later got promoted to gofer and as you can guess I went on to be a second shooter. That kept me in good stead when I started to do my own weddings I had a good grounding and knew the pitfalls. The only thing I will say to the OP is good luck but becareful with taking family weddings they are very difficult.
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That is very narrow minded? Maybe the B & G would also like something different from the rest? The demand for wedding photographers shooting digital is shrinking because there are a growing group who just allow their guests to take pictures and forward them; these are shot on camera phones in the main and are 'good enough' quality for a growing number of couples. You can't run a filmstock through a phone!
I hate to think what happened twenty years ago - did couples not get albums etc?
The 'look & feel' of a film image is completely different to a digital image and some (not all) like this - including the B & G!
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 21335
Guest
It can be for both the couple and the photographer. They get a product that the photographer (not just me, whoever) cares about making in a way that appeals to them. They get the photographers vision and creativity that happens to be created using film rather than digital. Believe it or not, there are couples out there who are specifically looking for photographers who shoot on film. I seconded for a previous TP member once because his bride asked if he shot any film along side his digital package. Jose Villa is renowned as one of the worlds top wedding photographers and he shoots exclusively on film.
I am in no way anti-digital (I say this a lot) but film still has an audience and some of that is in business. They still get files (high resolution scans) as well as the ability to produce albums. My couples also got a print box full of prints to go with their files. They loved them and booked me specifically for that. There are photographers out there for everyone shooting in many different ways and styles.
Hell, Danny North is shooting album covers for bands on film. Did you see the Blossoms latest album?
You replied as I was. Good to see there are more people with a similar attitude to myself.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 10,055
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
You do know it's possible to digitally scan film don't you? That way you end up with the exact same jpg files that you get from your digital kit so there's no reason why you can't supply albums/prints/files.
GTG
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,660
- Edit My Images
- Yes
One problem. Many digital shooters today could not even load the film into the camera, let alone make professional standard well exposed results.
Another rude reply to someone. But usually you just say " that would be a NO "
- Messages
- 5,335
- Name
- matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It can be for both the couple and the photographer. They get a product that the photographer (not just me, whoever) cares about making in a way that appeals to them. They get the photographers vision and creativity that happens to be created using film rather than digital. Believe it or not, there are couples out there who are specifically looking for photographers who shoot on film. I seconded for a previous TP member once because his bride asked if he shot any film along side his digital package. Jose Villa is renowned as one of the worlds top wedding photographers and he shoots exclusively on film.
I am in no way anti-digital (I say this a lot) but film still has an audience and some of that is in business. They still get files (high resolution scans) as well as the ability to produce albums. My couples also got a print box full of prints to go with their files. They loved them and booked me specifically for that. There are photographers out there for everyone shooting in many different ways and styles.
Hell, Danny North is shooting album covers for bands on film. Did you see the Blossoms latest album?
You replied as I was. Good to see there are more people with a similar attitude to myself.
But surely it must cost you a fortune to shoot 2,500 shots on film plus all that D&P not to mention the time taken to reload the film, not too bad on 35mm if you can still get the bulk backs Canon used to make (I think they held 250 frames?), but you must miss quite a few great images when re-loading, and if you use 120 then how in Hell's name do you still get 2,500 shots.
Matt
D
Deleted member 21335
Guest
Who said I shoot 2,500 frames? I shot many digital weddings and never shot that many!!
And missed shots? If they are 'missed', they don't exist, therefore who knows if they were great or not? It's a different approach when using film and again, your clients will know this, especially if they seek you out. My keeper rate was MUCH higher with film. I always delivered quality over quantity so never promised a set amount of images from a wedding. I shot a mixture of 35mm and 120. Doesn't;t matter how much it cost me, as long as I made a profit I was happy with.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
So again.. what does the happy couple get from film that they dont get from digital?
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
no.. its for the couple.. first second and last.. its there day not the photogrpahers..
Please tell me your not sugegsting someone wiht a digital camera doesnt also care the same wway...?
Still not telling me the difference to the B&G you seem to be still thinking about the photogrpaher?
Now you got it... is ther? OK then at last... thats a good reason to shoot film
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
and all I am askign is whats different to them? and you reply saying i am norrow minded? cheers
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
When a bride and groom look at the pictures from the wedding photogrpaher.. what will they see from a film camera that they dont see from a digital? whats the difference to them.. not to you the photogrpaher.. to them?
thats the question from me...
if i was narrow minded as accused then i wouldnt be asking would I ?: )
thats the question from me...
if i was narrow minded as accused then i wouldnt be asking would I ?: )
- Messages
- 25,349
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
The experience of having a film shooter, which is what they chose.
The same old business rule, there’s no right or wrong, there’s only selling what your customer wants.
25 years ago no one needed 500 pics delivered, or even 12 hours of coverage; now almost everyone wants that because it’s what photographers decided to deliver.
It’s worse than naive to believe that change was customer led. Ergo it’s daft to think there’s no customers who want something different from the rest.
D
Deleted member 21335
Guest
no.. its for the couple.. first second and last.. its there day not the photogrpahers..
Please tell me your not sugegsting someone wiht a digital camera doesnt also care the same wway...?
Still not telling me the difference to the B&G you seem to be still thinking about the photogrpaher?
Now you got it... is ther? OK then at last... thats a good reason to shoot film
It IS for the couple in regards to capturing their special day, yes but when I say it's also for the photographer, I mean with regards to creating their vision. For example, if I bride told me she liked something like selective colour in photos or the wedding party in a heart shape with them at the front, I would tell her I wasn't the photographer for her where some photographers would be happy to take the booking and do whatever the couple ask. Either way is fine.
I am in no way suggesting digital photographers don't care the same way, not at all. But some people choose to create on film rather than digital because they love the medium and there doesn't always have to be any other reason but that.
And there definitely IS a market for it and people actively searching that out. In fact, if I should ever get married, I have a couple of photographers shortlisted who I would choose.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 10,055
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
A completely different look to digital that maybe they would prefer? I know shooting film wouldn’t make sense in the generic sports shooting that you earn a living from but portraits/weddings are a completely different field that sometimes means different options.
- Messages
- 5,335
- Name
- matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Who said I shoot 2,500 frames? I shot many digital weddings and never shot that many!!
And missed shots? If they are 'missed', they don't exist, therefore who knows if they were great or not? It's a different approach when using film and again, your clients will know this, especially if they seek you out. My keeper rate was MUCH higher with film. I always delivered quality over quantity so never promised a set amount of images from a wedding. I shot a mixture of 35mm and 120. Doesn't;t matter how much it cost me, as long as I made a profit I was happy with.
You need to get a 10fps jobbie, you've been doing it wrong for years
(This, like my previous post wasnt meant to be taken seriously - my first camera was an Praktica in the 70's - when film ruled)
My daughter asked me to take some film shots of her wedding, she wanted something different too.
Matt
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
i already got that and i already agreed thats a good reason to shoot film (post #68) if thats what the customer is loking for.. so how am i being naive or worse as well as narrow minded.. ?
Last edited:
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
honest truth and not trying to cause a fight.. honest
I dont get it.. when they view an album.. lets say two side by side.. your saying the film one will look different (i understand nobody is saying better.. just different and preffered by some) .i dont see how they will look different in a wedding album ? . For clarity you are talking to someone who has never shot film ....
- Messages
- 5,335
- Name
- matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A printed neg and a printed digital do look different, whether it's obvious to all is questionable but it's like the difference between an MP3 and a vinyl record, there's just SOMETHING, it's also akin to FF or crop, there's just SOMETHING.honest truth and not trying to cause a fight.. honest
For me when I went 120 instead of 35mm there was a smoother gradation of colours, more depth to the colour, perhaps even the fact I took more time also meant the photo was in some way better, but perhaps a really good snapper would get the same image regardless of medium but I think the resultant photos would look/feel different on each medium.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 10,055
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
honest truth and not trying to cause a fight.. honest
In that case, you need to shoot some film.
If you look at two images (digital/film) of the same scene side by side you will be able to tell the difference. Many people are getting bored of ultrasharp 'sterile' digital results so would like to have something different. Also, not everyone wants 1000 images from their wedding day, which are often made up of multiple shots of the same scene from slightly different angles etc to bulk up the number of images delivered. I'm not saying anybody is right/wrong but there's definitely a market for shooting film too.
For clarity from me, I shoot both film and digital, shot weddings/portraits until the end of last year (using both mediums together) and am currently running a Kickstarter campaign for a large format field camera.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,349
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I wrote that whilst you were responding
And don’t put words in my mouth Tony
I said it’d be naive to believe (not that you did) ... and nothing about narrow minded.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
I am not saying anything right or wrong either.. just didnt understand how it was different for the bride and groom.. it all seemed to be aimed at the photographer being different shooting film and him/her doing somehting diffrent.. i wanted to know what was different for the B&G