What would you do??................

As a wedding tog ( who does not charge £2000 btw!) it is fraught with problems. And believe it or not I'm not putting a downer on it, I think it's a fab idea to get married at the zoo. I lurrve Chester Zoo!

But, the main problem I can see with the photography is direction. I'm used to being able to work with a couple, to direct them and get those shots that end up in the album. If you have up to 4 photographers there, that's a nightmare and one I'd avoid like the plague! Fair enough if all you want are candids, some of the wildlife togs on here could probably shoot them from 1/2 mile away! That's where some experience is invaluable though, how many who have not shot a wedding before know who to pose a couple in a busy environment, quickly (I mean no more that 5 mins for each location) and get the shots you need?

Just my thoughts. :)
 
Having worked at Whipsnade for a few years and being the photographer for a zoo here in the USA (unpaid position!!!!) I'd say that the trade off for the photographer is very poor. Whipsnade had three or four weddings every late spring, summer, early autumn weekend, plus a few in the week so there is no interest for local journalists. It is very unlikely that you would have free roam of the zoo after hours, a safari was mentioned so it sounds like a guided tour around a small portion of the zoo, probably restricted to a tight time line. Animals thrive on routine, the majority of animals will be in locked animal houses after the zoo is closed as they are fed there before the keepers leave for the night. Many animals have no access to outside enclosures at night as the escape risk is to great for the zoo if electric fences etc go down as there is a limited night security staff. Animal houses use dim or no lighting for evening hours so even if its a well lit early evening shadows and backlighting dont make for great animal shots. Any animal interaction that the bride and groom pay extra for will include the bride and groom in the shot, for example at Whipsnade the happy couple could pose with or on top of the elephants at a huge extra cost, but for naturalistic photos even without people it is far too posed and unaturalistic. I love zoos and can imagine wanting to get married in one would be very special. I agree with what the other posters say about having three or four photographers as you really need someone to take control and not have eyes all over the place (Take a look at the photographs taken by an enthusiastic amateur who shadowed the pro throughout the day - they have good enough pictures that almost mimic the pros but everyone is looking slightly lopsided as they are all looking at the pros camera not the amateurs, as it was the pro who was setting up the shots and directing the guests). If you are spending so much to get the day that you want, spend the extra to capture the memories too. You will be getting a photographer that will be focussing on you all day and not the animals, as an animal photographer I would be waiting for the perfect animal expression, not the perfect bride expression. I am not a pro but this is the once instance where I would say it is extremely sound advice to go with someone whose speciality is weddings not animal portraits.
 
hiya, sorry ive been offline whilst all this was going on!! n im so sorry that ive caused an arguement!!:crying:

ok...let me try n answer some of the issues here......
as for the budget (n the photographer being asked for free) im making all the favours, invitations and wedding cake myself (yes u heard right....the wedding cake!! u can tell what a shambles that will be! lol)
im not planning on having cars....cant afford them...id be happy to drive upto the venue in safari jeep with a dung trailer on the back :LOL:
rings....we will just get the cheapest,
caterer...the venue caters, so that in with what i pay for the venue anyway,
and that why i keep asking WHAT WOULD YOU WANT IN RETURN? you keep saying that why should photographers give up their free time....but some amateurs may want practise, and i was asking what i could give in return...im clueless.

ok...so maybe 4 is a little high? and i now know what u mean by eye contact!! it would look funny wouldnt it!
BUT saying that...im not keen on the whole 'family shot' photos...obviously i'll want a few but priority is bride n groom photos...and they can take as many pics of the animals as they wish on the safari.....we will be 2 busy looking at the animals too! lol

the thing is.....im not bothered bout the cars, n the fancy place settings n fancy food...im more of an egg n chips kinda gal :LOL:! all i want is as many pics of the day as poss, like Dave Stone said....pics last a lifetime...nothing else of the day matters.

as for the newspaper etc. they wouldnt be interested as they have already had weddings there
 
Oh don't worry, that's not an arguement, you should see some of the arguements..............on the other hand don't................wedding type threads on here have a habit of getting somewhat volatile. :)

I do think Chester zoo is a fab idea and I take my hat off to your resourcefulness in getting the rest organised yourself.
 
zebedee.....the venue lets u choose a few exhibits to visit after the zoo is closed to the public as a summer safari BBQ....some are still outside, but depending on what enclosures u choose they let u inside....i.e elephant house, jaguar hut etc.

plus the photographers have no choice but to take photos of bride n groom during the day as its based at a manor inside the zoo.....they can take as many animal pics as they like during the safari....the tour guide stops n does a talk at each chosen enclosure so plenty of time for pics then.

here are some taken specifically in the zoo where i was thinking of:
http://www.perrotphoto.co.uk/librar...&category=gallery/Weddings/rothwell&start=138
 
button-moon said:
hiya, sorry ive been offline whilst all this was going on!! n im so sorry that ive caused an arguement!!:crying:
Click to expand...

Nah, it's not an argument and having explained everything you're doing to keep the costs down fair play to you. Best wishes for the day :)

You still haven't fixed your sig though :p
 
button-moon said:
zebedee.....the venue lets u choose a few exhibits to visit after the zoo is closed to the public as a summer safari BBQ....some are still outside, but depending on what enclosures u choose they let u inside....i.e elephant house, jaguar hut etc.

plus the photographers have no choice but to take photos of bride n groom during the day as its based at a manor inside the zoo.....they can take as many animal pics as they like during the safari....the tour guide stops n does a talk at each chosen enclosure so plenty of time for pics then.

here are some taken specifically in the zoo where i was thinking of:
http://www.perrotphoto.co.uk/librar...&category=gallery/Weddings/rothwell&start=138
Click to expand...

To further explain my comments, while it might be nice for your guests to see the animals up close and personal in their animal houses, it makes for lousy animal pictures. Behinds the scenes in zoos are practical but aesthetically unpleasing, lots of bars concrete and cleaning tools, behind the scenes is given to the zoo keepers and animals needs not those of the animal adoring public. I understand the need to keep the costs of your wedding down and risk severe wrath on here by suggesting that if you cant afford a pro wedding tog you target an amateur or student photographer that wants experience in wedding, event or portrait photography, not a photographer that is there to get wildlife shots. The kitbag of a wildlife photographer can be very different from that of a wedding photographer and as a previous poster said, to get what you need the nature photographer may have to place themselves in the car park to fit you in with their ultra zoom lens, ok slight exageration as my kit bag isnt quite that bad. I took at a quick look at the link you provided and the wedding photos are wedding photos, however the half dozen lion pictures of a close up including in the majority of cases the wire mesh, really didnt float my boat.
 
Can't really be bothered to read the whole thread properly but for what little it's worth, I don't shoot weddings....EVER and I'm very mercinary about picking up a camera commercially and wont take off a lens cap until I know who's paying.....


.... But I would seriously consider this just because it sounds like a fun day. So if I'd give it some thought, I reckon loads of folks would..... perhaps. :LOL:
 
I honestly don't think you'd have a problem finding takers, I'd do it and I know a couple of others who would too. As has been said though, unless anyone is trained, you're basically playing a game of risk and hoping for the best.

I'm sure there would be plenty of great shots but not the quality you'd get from a pro.
 
For the bride, loads of chaotic candids and no formal record :(

For the photographers, ditto, plus no more of a zoo photo opportunity than you could get on a normal visit :thinking:
 
Having worked a two shooter wedding I can offer the following.

At least one photographer has to scout the location beforehand and find the natural backdrops and look for set ups.

One photographer has to be the lead photographer. The lead photographer is the one everyone should be looking at for the formal and sem-formal shots. The lead photographer is the one directing the other photographers to their next location. For example the lead photographer will be wanting to get the images of the bride stepping from the car at arrival. The second photographer will be getting the shots of the groom and best man anticipating the imminent arrival and will also probably get the atmosphere shots of the ushers as the car arrives. At the last one I did, I got the long distance with background arrival shots whilst the lead photographer concentrated on the step out close ups. As the lead photographer was covering the bride getting ready I covered the best man, groom and ushers before the arrival of the bridal car.

The photographers have to meet beforehand and discuss who is covering what, when and where. For example, at the ring exchange will the lead photographer be doing the close ups whilst the second does the 'down the aisle shot' and guest shots.

The second has to know when to put his/her camera down to ensure that all eyes are on the lead.

Decide who is doing the atmosphere shots. Place settings, cake, general venue, car arrival etc.

Even with two photographers who work well together and have a clear understanding of their role and the shot list it can sometimes be difficult to get a shot without the other photographer in it. With four photographers this will be very difficult (read nightmare).

I recommend two photographers max who don't have ego's they are tripping over, have worked together before and who understand that one is the lead and the other the second.

If the lead has an assistant he/she will also be texting/speaking to the second with up to date info and changes. The second will be speaking to the assistant to notify of opportunities that may not have been planned.

Get two skilled amateurs who are confident and who can demonstrate they can work together and you will be much happier with the results. Get two skilled pros and be very happy with the results (sorry, couldn't stop myself) :) .

One of the things myself and my associate stress is that we aim to provide "Photographs about your day. Not a day about photographs". This is important as the day can quickly turn into a series of staged and semi-staged shoots that just happens to be at a wedding.

I really would hate to have to co-ordinate three other photographers. It is hard enough with one.

As for doing it for free I am sure you will find someone but look at their work before committing yourself. There are a lot of people who really have no idea how difficult it is to shoot a wedding and will jump at the chance to try to learn at your expense. Good wedding photography is a lot harder than taking a nice picture of your mates at the seaside.

I seem to have rambled on here a bit but hopefully have contributed something as well :)

John
 
you havnt rambled John,u gave some brilliant pointers!i do like 'staged' photos, but sometimes u can get a real good shot without the bride n groom even noticing!

so maybe i should look into this abit more? i know lots of people have said its a gamble....but isnt it the smae gamble when paying for a proffesional? i mean someone on here is having trouble with their proffesional photographer. i just dont know what to do!
 
I dont think its a bad idea - think 'street' photography but at a wedding! Personally I think it could work, though (I think it might already have been said) you may miss out on the group staged shots... Some people like these as it shows them with all their friends and family on the big day...

If you can live without that (and recognise the shots wont be as good as the pro's on a technical level) I think its ok as long as you can find volenteers with the right kit!

* and just look at Andyrap's thread to see how spending £2k plus on a pro can still go wrong!
 
thanks odd jim,

we dont have a big family....there would only be approx 40 people at the day,and 60 for the safari. and i bet half of them wouldnt turn up coz its about an hour n half away from where we live!
what sort of kit would they need?
 
button-moon said:
thanks odd jim,

we dont have a big family....there would only be approx 40 people at the day,and 60 for the safari. and i bet half of them wouldnt turn up coz its about an hour n half away from where we live!
what sort of kit would they need?
Click to expand...

Just a decent DSLR with the right lenses, such as portrait lenses and a decent walkabout lens. If they have the right kit, then you can be almost half happy that they might know what they are doing as well! So any decent 50mm, 17-85 etc. If they turn up with a massive 400mm zoom you'll know they're not really sure about what they're doing!
 
LMAO....i have no idea what im doing either! my camera hasnt even arrived yet!!
ive got a canon 500d with a 18-55mm lens? what will i be able to take pics of with this? totally clueless! :LOL:
 
That lens would be the right focal length, though as its the kit lens it wont be as sharp or fast (as in getting the focus quickly) as say a Canon 17-40mm f4L (which costs about £600 on its own new). The 17-40 mm would be ideal though - or that sort of focal range - for a wedding as it has a slight zoom capacity and also has a good wide angle capability for scenes, and group shots.
 
Lol, its expensive, but addictive!! Thats a top end lens, but you can get them at more reasonable prices!
 
i have no idea about lenses or anything! im not sure ill be even able to turn the camera on! never mind take a picture!:LOL:
i see uve got a canon......what tripod will be best for my 500d and how much are they?(please dont say £300!! lol)
 
lol, try looking at the canon 24-70 or the 70-200 f2.8IS.

and definitely avoid looking at the 600mm L

there is cheaper alternatives for most lenses though.

Welcome to DSLR and empty bank balances!!!:wave:

if you search the forum for redsnapper, they do a good tripod with head for about £100
 
...and you can get reasonable tripods for about £30 - 80 at Jessops - you dont need to spend the world on tripods, but avoid anything too light weight - you dont want your 500D blowing over onto the deck! I've got a cheapo one I bought from Curries and its fine.

You learn quickly about the lenses, just by being on here!
 
its all the numbers n letters that confuse me lol
what do people use the 600mm for??

ogod yeah.....dont fancy having my camera for 2 days n then having it smashed to pieces!
 
the numbers relate to how big the subject will be in the final image.

a 24-70mm for instance. the 24 is the wider end and useful for landscapes, you will get more in the image. 70 mm is the zoom end, so less in the image.

a 600mm lens would be used for things like wildlife or sports where you cant get too close.

the f number is how wide the aperture in the lens is. the wider the aperture the more light it lets in the faster shutter speed you can use.
 
button-moon said:
its all the numbers n letters that confuse me lol
what do people use the 600mm for??

ogod yeah.....dont fancy having my camera for 2 days n then having it smashed to pieces!
Click to expand...

The 600mm is a massive zoom lens - ideal for wildlife etc, where you need to get really close.

Basically numbers wise, the lower the number (on the mm) the wider field of view you will get. For example, the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 - these are ultrwide lenses. A 55-250mm for example, is a telephoto, the bigger the mm the closer to the subject you'll be. The "f" number is the lowest apeture it goes, basically the lower the better (it can let more light in).

If its a single number,, ie the Canon 50mm is a fixed 'prime' lens and wont zoom, these lenses tend to be very sharp!

EDIT - fletch beat me to it!
 
OMG....kill me now!! i can see me not taking any of this in at all!,youve explained well....but i still have no idea!! the shutter speed means if somethings moving fast? n not to blur it?
:LOL: dumb!
 
lol, dont worry too much bout it. it sounds a lot more ocmplicated than it is.

there are three things that control the exposure.

the shutter speed, the ISO and the aperture.

altering these settings will get youbrighter or darker images to suit but each affect the image in there own way.

iso is sensitivity, based on old film, the lower the iso number, the less sensitive it is to light. so the other 2 need to be higher. high iso numbers can cause noise though(little coloured flecks across the image. on film it used to be grain i think)
aperture is how wide the blades will open. this is based on focal length and where the f numbers come from. the wider the aperture(lower the f number) the less Depth of Focus you have. (where the point you focused on is sharp, but the rest is blurred)
the shutter speed is how long the shutter is open for taking the picture. faster shutter speeds freeze action more and help stop with camera shake(your movement as you take the picture). slower shutter speeds allow blur while panning etc, and let more light in for brighter images, but you will get camera shake making your images blurry.

ISO and shutterspeeds are based on the camera, so if you get lots of noise at 800 iso, then changing lenses wont really help. the f number(aperture) is based on the lens. you have the kit lens which i think is f 3.5-5.6. that is the maximum aperture you can go to(lowest f number) if indoors you will most likely have to use flash as there wont be enough light.

the expensive lenses tend to have lower f numbers.

best answer is to play around with the camera a bit first, then try altering each setting and seeing the difference yourself.
 
Yep, faster shutter speeds if you want to 'freeze' the subject. You'll learn as you go, its one of those subjects that if you go straight into it expecting to understand it, it'll blow your mind! You'll learn it through taking your camera out and just playing with it and trying the various setting etc... Thats how I learnt and its good fun!
 
thanks u 2!! i dont have a flash...infact i dont even know if it has one built in!! probably will have but thats something i didnt even think about! i actually HATE flashes n try to get sunlight everywhere i go.....sometimes a built in flash (especially on my cheapo aldi camera!) makes hair look funny!
 
button-moon said:
you havnt rambled John,u gave some brilliant pointers!i do like 'staged' photos, but sometimes u can get a real good shot without the bride n groom even noticing!
Click to expand...

You can...

However those shots normally happen while there is something else going on - stages shots for example. Otherwise what would happen outside the ceremony that gets all the people you want in the shots together for a reasonable amount of time.

I mentioned it earlier and I still think that having one lead photographer is important.
 
o yes i agree...one would have to be in charge, but could they not take it in turn who was in charge? say one was in charge during the day, and the other took over later? its just to give the photographers a fair chance of grabbing shots. these are the sort of photos i like:

http://www.thebestweddingreceptionever.com/images/WeddingParty.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g215/trazharvey/Untitled-1wed.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g215/trazharvey/Untitled-2.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g215/trazharvey/Untitled-3.jpg

**STAFF EDIT** Images changed to links as I presume they are not your pictures.
 
yes, it has a builtin flash, but not as good as a flashgun(y)

if it doesnt (it will be a pop up out the top) then they sent you the wrong camera,but keep stum coz it worth a lot more;))
 
fletch5 said:
if it doesnt (it will be a pop up out the top) then they sent you the wrong camera,but keep stum coz it worth a lot more;))
Click to expand...

both my cameras dont have a pop up flash... and there worth 5 thousand quid between them... pop up flash doesnt mean more expensive camera as a rule of thumb.. but in your example it will :)
 
supposedly, where you order from?
 
KIPAX said:
both my cameras dont have a pop up flash... and there worth 5 thousand quid between them... pop up flash doesnt mean more expensive camera as a rule of thumb.. but in your example it will :)
Click to expand...

eh?

I read it that fletch said if it doesn't have a popup flash it will be wortt a lot more, which is what you just said, but then fletchs example is different ... eh?:thinking:
 
button-moon said:
simply electronics....read a thread about them on here n theres not good news on it!:crying:
seems they are importing my camera? although online it says its in stock!
Click to expand...

Oh dear, did you pay by credit card?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top