Hmmm...Could it be true?

Candid Arts · February 21, 2009

So reading this thread here, I've come to question my own photos of weddings. I've only shot three weddings, and obviously don't think of myself as a pro, or even semi-pro, wedding photographer, and also obviously know I have a lot of areas to improve upon.

I am curious as to what some of you, and the pro's, have to say about my photos. What made me curious is this fellow in the other thread looked at the photos posted, and told the poor gal to never shoot a wedding again. Now I didn't think the photos were that bad, with actually a few good/potentially great ones. But with this fellows reaction, I started to question my own "beginner" abilities. There are a bunch of photos from each of the three weddings, so I'm not going to post actual photos, instead just the links.

This first wedding was obviously my first ever, with almost no experience in PP and it was one of the most challenging situations to photograph in, due to the lighting. Now I know that most of these could use better PP and at this time I didn't have my 580EXII, so I was either relying on higher ISO, or the on-camera flash, which we all know sucks. At this wedding I was a 2nd (really a 3rd) photographer, so it wasn't all up to me. The lady (1st photographer) was just doing me a favor and getting me some experience. I also realize that I need to pay more attention to the backgrounds and where things are at. This wedding was also before I had PS, when all I had was LR1. Anyways, here is the gallery. Any and all comments are appreciated.

My second wedding I had a little more something to go off of. At this wedding I was the 2nd/3rd (I say 2nd) photographer, under the same lady as 1st, and with the same other guy as 3rd from the first wedding. Still only LR1 (maybe version 2 at this point), no PS, I did however have my 580EXII and a new lens, my current baby (24-105 4 L). I didn't know how to fully use my flash at that point, which even still I'm pretty sketchy on (flash photography is hard...plus I don't practice enough). The bride wore stark white and everyone else in black, on a very back lit day, so that was challenging. I can most certainly see an improvement however. Some better PP and knowledge of doing it would help a bit. Also just more practice shooting weddings. I just looked at the gallery to get some ideas for my own little mini critique, and am realizing that all the photos I kept from that day aren't there, so I'll just go with what is there for the purposes of this thread. Here is this gallery. Again any and all comments are greatly appreciated. Thank you.

My third wedding. I was really happy with a lot of these photos, my only problem was the wedding colors, they were very bland and dull, hence all the B&W shots. At this point I was still on my center everything phase (which I am currently out of btw), so I realize that a lot of the people are centered. The posing for the most part (about 98%) was all done by the lead photographer, same lady as the other two weddings (I was again the 2nd photographer on this one) as I have yet to come in to my own and be able to pose people (which is something I REALLY need to work on). I set up my own angles and what not to get my own perspective. Some of my favorite shots from this wedding for me were the candid stuff, as well as the "other" stuff at the wedding (i.e. decoration, dinner wear, etc... as that's what my preference is for photography). As the night grew, I took out my flash, still pretty un-experienced in it's abilities and uses, but I think ended up with some good shots. Here is this gallery. Again any and all comments greatly appreciated.

Now in all of these weddings, the lead said I did good work, not leaving too much room above the head, as that is a common mistake upon noobs (obviously unless you're doing it for a purpose and not on accident), and other things that I don't remember. She said that the couples have liked and requested quite a few of my photos as well. So I figured I was doing something right. However the previously mentioned thread got me questioning that. So, there it is, quite the long post, but if anyone can give some critque, where ever they feel the need, I would appreciate it.

Thanks so much to everyone for viewing.

Swartzy · February 21, 2009

Allow me to first say that upon looking at the 3 galleries, it's evident you can shoot a square, in focus, clean frame. That's good. What is missing is the "wow" factor. Now I'm not suggesting that every frame is going to be a home run....on the contrary but there should exist an element of intrigue or "draw" if you will to pull the viewer into the frame. There will always be those simple candids..which are both good and necessary. There will always be the formals to where they are looking at the primary photog..again, necessary (and sometimes the best shots).

What is lacking here more than anything is the post processing.....they are fairly flat with a lack of pop.....all are underexposed by at least 1/2 stop. With today's software tools, we can make a pretty good shot into something wonderful. When shooting weddings we have to think of the elegance, the beauty, the radical, the entertaining, the cool, the interesting, the moment, the joy, the fun. Our clients want those types of shots representative of their wedding day..we have to find them, capture them. Sometimes by fabricating them if necessary...by that I mean, get funky with your processing at times. Take a square shot, tilt it, run it though a bleach bypass filter, or maybe cross process..give it life.

When culling through images, one has to ask themselves.."what does this picture say to me?"...then the ideas will flow when processing.

You're on the right track and some of your detail shots are lovely...they would even be better with the right type of processing. In today's world, it is no longer good enough to just shoot..we have to be artists in the digital darkroom as well.

Keep going, don't be discouraged....we will NEVER arrive....it's all about the journey....next year, you'll be way way better than this year and as long as you continue to apply yourself, your work will diplay that discipline. Don't forget to look at lots and lots of wedding photos...see the light, the processing, the poses....and figure out what draws you in...then just take one (1) idea and try to implement that next time out..don't try to become (enter your favorite photog) all in one day......it is a process.

thumb

Shima · February 21, 2009

Lots of great points up there, you have a great eye, do a wonderful job of framing, now we just need to get you to turn it up a notch when you post process.

Do you shoot in RAW or JPG? I find RAW is the way to go to be able to get that little bit of extra leeway with tweaking the photographs later, if you're not familiar with RAw, I'd recommend to start playing around with it.

Anyhoo you're doing good and definitely on the right path so keep it up!

WingsOfLovePhoto · February 21, 2009

I wouldn't worry about your photos in comparison to the other guys. Yours are more clear and crisp. You don't say what you shoot with but if you don't have pro glass that should be your next purchase. I found it made a huge difference. I think I like the 2nd gallery best but it could be because the red helps to have things stand out a bit. I agree on all points with Swartzy... and post processing is oh so important..... I by no means am a great photog but I look at pictures constantly to get ideas here and elsewhere. Take notes of what works and keep them handing during your next wedding. Keep up the good work

Matthew Saville · February 21, 2009

1.) I'm extremely glad that my brash action is causing people to think deeply, as opposed to simply ignoring me / rebuking me for being so hard. Thinking deeply about your skill level and worth is one of the things that will drive you to get better.

Watch Zack's video if you haven't already:

http://www.zarias.com/?p=284

2.) It is not so much a matter of whether or not you are qualified to shoot. I think that, below $1000 for complete coverage, you get what you pay for, period. But like I said, free is free is free, and sometimes that's all a couple can afford.

3.) All I'd like to see among hobbyists / amateurs / starting-out pros is to put a little more effort into encouraging brides to hire someone with more experience. Don't say yes as easily. Like I said in the other thread: If you KNOW they can afford more than you and are just not valuing photography as much as they should, don't take advantage of that- TRY TRY TRY to impress upon couples just how much happier they will be in 20 years if they take that $500 and simply buy a portrait session with an experienced pro.

4.) As I said before, most hobbyists can do a satisfactory job of documenting the ceremony and other candid moments / details. But when it comes to the portraits- in 20 years the couple will realize the true level of quality of their photos...

5.) That brings up the one tip that I have time to give, without actually performing an in-depth critique of someone's work. (An in-depth critique takes enough of my time that I'd have to charge for it, and yet I don't even feel qualified to make money off critiquing someone else's work, so I would refuse even if someone offered... But I digress... The one tip...)

...When shooting, and when reviewing your images immediately on the back of your LCD, you gotta think 20 years down the road. What do I mean by that? I mean that often times, people are prematurely satisfied with the image on the back of their camera because they are confusing the excitement of the ACTUAL moment and the excitement captured in the photograph. Did you REALLY capture that moment? Or are you still just feeling it in your own emotions, and letting that affect your judgment of the photo? This is a HUGE tool I learned in improving your photography on-the-fly: Disconnect yourself from the current excitement you are getting from the moment itself, and DISCERN whether or not you are actually capturing that excitement in the photo.

...Then, once you've tried that a little bit, here's the next step- be aware of the image you are taking, BEFORE YOU TAKE IT. Many people shoot in what I think is some sort of "digital autopilot" They shoot first without thinking, THEN look at the image they just shot.

We will improve exponentially faster if we can do these two things- disconnect our in-the-moment emotions from our assesment of the images we're making, and THINKING before we click that next photo.

Good luck to Bryce, and to all!

=Matt=

[edit] Oh, and one more thing- Post processing is important, but as a rule of thumb you should be able to show people the image on the back of the camera and wow them. DO NOT focus on Photoshop skills more than shooting skills, EVER.

BTW, I'm one opinionated guy, obviously, so take everything I say with a big fat grain of salt, and do check out my own photography just in case you're actually better than me and I'm just mouthing off...
;-)

Cygnus Studios · February 21, 2009

Matt,

While I read with great interest your replies in both threads, a statement made in the last thread just doesn't sit well with me. Now with that said, I am not a wedding photographer and do not pretend to be.

Here is your quote:

Matthew Saville wrote:

...Take that $500 and buy a simple, 1-2 hour day-after bridal session with an experienced pro. The bridal portraits are where you will notice BY FAR the biggest difference between the experienced pro and the weekend warrior.

I can't see ever recommending to a bride that they don't get wedding pics.

I agree that a nice bridal portrait is great, and yes a good portrait photographer will in fact give better results. You will get no argument from me there.
I also agree that 20 years from now a nice portrait will give more meaning, but next month when the bride is telling the family and co-workers about the wedding, we all know the 1st question is about seeing the photos.

I am not saying that any tom, dick or harry with a digital camera should take the job, but above average photos are always better than none.

happysmileylady · February 21, 2009

When people are paying for your photos, it's your customer's opinion that's most important, not another photographer's. Yes, other photographers are great to learn from. Their opinions can help you learn and expand your horizons. But...they don't pay your bills, your customers do.

My mom does not like "creative" photography. Which means when I shoot for her, everything is centered, people have to look AT the camera, and they always have to smile. And if I tilt something, she laughs and thinks I made a mistake. If my wedding pictures had looked like a lot of the pictures that other photographers here have posted, she wouldn't have purchased any of them.

In any business, if you want to make money, you provide what the customer wants, not what others in the industry think the customer wants.

Again, I am not saying to discount what other photographers say. Ask questions, gather information, learn from other photographers. But ultimately, if a customer is going to spend $1000 only on pictures that are centered, well, center the subject and pay your bills. If you are only shooting the way other photographers say you should, not only will you have difficulty finding your own style, but you could lose money.

catspaw · February 21, 2009

happysmileylady wrote:

Again, I am not saying to discount what other photographers say. Ask questions, gather information, learn from other photographers. But ultimately, if a customer is going to spend $1000 only on pictures that are centered, well, center the subject and pay your bills. If you are only shooting the way other photographers say you should, not only will you have difficulty finding your own style, but you could lose money.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. You cannot create your own style if you are always shooting what the customer wants. You are typically best off establishing yourself and your style -- and those who WANT what you offer will come to you. Else if you are always entirely changing your style to suit your clients, you will never establish your own style. The best wedding photographers appear to do what they do and people DO come to them and pay them WELL to do what they do best -- their own style.

happysmileylady · February 21, 2009

catspaw wrote:

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. You cannot create your own style if you are always shooting what the customer wants. You are typically best off establishing yourself and your style -- and those who WANT what you offer will come to you. Else if you are always entirely changing your style to suit your clients, you will never establish your own style. The best wedding photographers appear to do what they do and people DO come to them and pay them WELL to do what they do best -- their own style.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound contradictory. I only mean that no one should put so much stock in another photographer's opinion that they discount their own. If someone likes your work enough to pay for it and be happy about it, well then the photographer has to be doing something right.

Candid Arts · February 22, 2009

One other thing I forgot to mention was all the photos I have on my site are not exactly what the customer saw. I had my RAW files, and edited them as I saw fit, for my gallery only. The main photographer for the wedding took all my RAW files after the wedding(s) and did what she did with them, and that is what the customer saw. So...yeah. Ok.

Swartzy wrote:

Allow me to first say that upon looking at the 3 galleries, it's evident you can shoot a square, in focus, clean frame. That's good. What is missing is the "wow" factor. Now I'm not suggesting that every frame is going to be a home run....on the contrary but there should exist an element of intrigue or "draw" if you will to pull the viewer into the frame. There will always be those simple candids..which are both good and necessary. There will always be the formals to where they are looking at the primary photog..again, necessary (and sometimes the best shots).

What is lacking here more than anything is the post processing.....they are fairly flat with a lack of pop.....all are underexposed by at least 1/2 stop. With today's software tools, we can make a pretty good shot into something wonderful. When shooting weddings we have to think of the elegance, the beauty, the radical, the entertaining, the cool, the interesting, the moment, the joy, the fun. Our clients want those types of shots representative of their wedding day..we have to find them, capture them. Sometimes by fabricating them if necessary...by that I mean, get funky with your processing at times. Take a square shot, tilt it, run it though a bleach bypass filter, or maybe cross process..give it life.

When culling through images, one has to ask themselves.."what does this picture say to me?"...then the ideas will flow when processing.

You're on the right track and some of your detail shots are lovely...they would even be better with the right type of processing. In today's world, it is no longer good enough to just shoot..we have to be artists in the digital darkroom as well.

Keep going, don't be discouraged....we will NEVER arrive....it's all about the journey....next year, you'll be way way better than this year and as long as you continue to apply yourself, your work will diplay that discipline. Don't forget to look at lots and lots of wedding photos...see the light, the processing, the poses....and figure out what draws you in...then just take one (1) idea and try to implement that next time out..don't try to become (enter your favorite photog) all in one day......it is a process.

thumb

Thank you so much. Exactly what I wanted to hear, but not what I thought I was going to hear, for the most part. I know I needed a lot of work at PP, but like I said, at that point I had literally just began to use LR and didn't yet have PS. I'm thinking about going back through the files and re-editing them with what I know now. During my short stay at art school thus far, I'm learning a lot as far as composition, putting a little of myself in the photo, and giving it some of that "wow" factor. I am definitely more careful now when I'm taking my photos, and don't just try to fill up as many memory cards as fast as I can...as I used to.

Thanks for all the compliments...

Shima wrote:

Lots of great points up there, you have a great eye, do a wonderful job of framing, now we just need to get you to turn it up a notch when you post process.

Do you shoot in RAW or JPG? I find RAW is the way to go to be able to get that little bit of extra leeway with tweaking the photographs later, if you're not familiar with RAw, I'd recommend to start playing around with it.

Anyhoo you're doing good and definitely on the right path so keep it up!

Thank you so much. I know PP is my biggest weakness right now, even with my latest (and I think much improved) work. I'm getting better though, playing with it as much as I can, actually taking a digital tools class at my school, so I'm working on it.

I shoot RAW 100% of the time. Because of this, I think I might go back and re-edit some of the photos and see what I can do to make them better. I know a little bit about PS, and a lot more than I did about LR now, but am learning new things and ideas everyday to put to good use.

Thanks for the words...

WingsOfLovePhoto wrote:

I wouldn't worry about your photos in comparison to the other guys. Yours are more clear and crisp. You don't say what you shoot with but if you don't have pro glass that should be your next purchase. I found it made a huge difference. I think I like the 2nd gallery best but it could be because the red helps to have things stand out a bit. I agree on all points with Swartzy... and post processing is oh so important..... I by no means am a great photog but I look at pictures constantly to get ideas here and elsewhere. Take notes of what works and keep them handing during your next wedding. Keep up the good work

Thank you. In my signature it says what I currently have. However, the first wedding was shot with a 40D and 17-85 IS kit lens and 60mm 2.8 Macro (for the close ups). Second and third wedding were shot with 40D, 24-105 4 L, 17-85 IS, 60mm Macro. Now I'm using a 50D, 100mm 2.8 macro, 50mm 1.4, 24-105 4 L, and 10-22. My next glass purchase will be the 70-200 2.8 IS, then probably the 17-55 2.8 IS, and then MAYBE selling my 24-105 f4 and buying the 24-70 2.8. So nicer glass is on it's way, at some point, when I can start making some money. But school is kind of inhibiting that right now.

Thanks for the good words.

Matthew Saville wrote:

Good luck to Bryce, and to all!

=Matt=

BTW, I'm one opinionated guy, obviously, so take everything I say with a big fat grain of salt, and do check out my own photography just in case you're actually better than me and I'm just mouthing off...
;-)

Didn't put your entire post in here as it was long, but here are some main responses to your main points:

1) I entirely agree. Negative feedback I think can be a million percent better than positive feedback sometimes (to a certain extent obviously). It encourages you to do better and better and better, and continue to learn and push your skills.

I've tried to watch the video a couple times, a fellow photographer on another forum posted it, and my slow internet just keeps failing me, and I have other things to attend to. But I do intend to watch it as soon as I can, probably tomorrow while I'm at work and can take advantage of the super fast intranet.

2) Agreed. I haven't shot a wedding for free yet, but I will be. I (and my room mate/2nd photographer) have about 4, maybe 5, weddings booked up for us this spring - fall. All friends and family, each of which is on a VERY strict budget. So we are pricing accordingly for each customer. Each of the weddings I posted for, as stated I was a back up photographer, and mainly just there to build my portfolio, not actually make money (although that would have been nice). I was paid $100 for each one I did my the main photographer. Which was more than enough for me just to get something under my belt.

3) This one I don't know about. For me, if I can shoot a wedding, add to my portfolio, and make some money off of prints, then that's money made, and in my pocket. Which right now is MUCHO needed. But I do see your point, and agree to a certain extent. In this economy, money is money is money, even if it's only $100 from selling prints. And with the weddings that I do have lined up, it's helping out a friend/family member in need and adding to my portfolio. They all understand where I am at as a (wedding) photographer, and know what they will be getting. They've seen the work that I've done, and expect similar results. I have a pretty low-key friend and family network, all pretty much country folk. So $10,000, $5,000, even $1,500 for someone to take pictures is just out of the question. Untill I start to get good at shooting, and PP, and actually get customers that I'm not related to and have a budget to work with, it's all helping me practice and build my portfolio. If my customer (family, friend, or otherwise) doesn't want what I can produce, or expects more than what I can do, then I won't do, obviously.

4) Understandable as I've seen some seriously breathtaking wedding photos that I can't even begin to compare myself to.

5) I totally know what you mean. And as I've started to shoot film, I've noticed taking a lot more time composing my shot even on my digital to make sure it's what I'm going for, portrays some sort of emotion, even in a still life or other, non-people, type photo.

[edit]) I try to as much as possible. I'm still learning a lot and trying to utilize as much as I can as often as I can. When shooting in RAW though, aside form exposing properly, what else can you do to make the little preview jpg for your LCD look "outstanding"? A RAW file is just that...RAW. As I understand your point about making the photo look great on the LCD at the moment, at the same time with a RAW file it's going to look like a RAW file. Well I guess not really depending on what you have your camera jpg set up to do, even though it's not actually saving a jpg file, just creating one for the preview. I don't think that made sense, never mind.

Thanks for all the advice, here and in the PM you sent me. Great words. Not all I wanted to hear, but ones I needed to hear, and there is a huge difference. I truly appreciate everything.

happysmileylady wrote:

When people are paying for your photos, it's your customer's opinion that's most important, not another photographer's. Yes, other photographers are great to learn from. Their opinions can help you learn and expand your horizons. But...they don't pay your bills, your customers do.

My mom does not like "creative" photography. Which means when I shoot for her, everything is centered, people have to look AT the camera, and they always have to smile. And if I tilt something, she laughs and thinks I made a mistake. If my wedding pictures had looked like a lot of the pictures that other photographers here have posted, she wouldn't have purchased any of them.

In any business, if you want to make money, you provide what the customer wants, not what others in the industry think the customer wants.

Again, I am not saying to discount what other photographers say. Ask questions, gather information, learn from other photographers. But ultimately, if a customer is going to spend $1000 only on pictures that are centered, well, center the subject and pay your bills. If you are only shooting the way other photographers say you should, not only will you have difficulty finding your own style, but you could lose money.

I know exactly what you mean. My grandmother is the same way. Tonight I was taking some macro shots of my almost 6 month old nieces feet, and my grandma was just laughing at me. But they were oh so adorable. I just told her, "grandma, it's art".

While I do agree with your post to a certain extent, it's not entirely true. I mean yeah with family members they are going to want you to shoot for them because of the relationship, so you change your style so they'll be happy with what they are getting. But when it comes to a customer or future customer, they are making that phone call to you because they like your style and want that style. If they don't like your angles, and all that other artsy fartsy stuff, your phone won't ring, or email won't ding (I have a mac, so it does that).

Thanks everyone for all your great posts and thoughts. This went a little off topic near the end about what the thread was asking, but it started off great, and ended with some great info.

Any more mini critiques on any of the wedding photos? If I get some time, I'll try and do some new PP-ing to the photos with all my new knowledge, and see what kind of better results I can get.

Again thanks to everyone who posted.

Matthew Saville · February 22, 2009

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I can't see ever recommending to a bride that they don't get wedding pics.

Cygnus, like I said I *am* pretty opinionated, so take it with a grain of salt, but...

First of all, I was not advising that a couple completely do WITHOUT any photos at all on their wedding day. What I'm saying is, get 2-3 friends to shoot the ceremony etc. for free, in addition to spending money on the portrait session. Sorry for any confusion!

And, I'm speaking from sheer experience- I have gone through tens of thousands of wedding photos. I have seen at least ten thousand photos shot by other photographers; assistants and 2nd shooters who I pay, and also the "uncle bob" characters.

What I see is that anyone, as long as they have a good eye and basic knowledge of how to get a correctly exposed, sharp image, can very quickly capture some *amazing* candid and detail shots. Here are a couple shots that a friend of mine snapped, the VERY FIRST TIME he picked up a DSLR and assisted me at a wedding:

So, like I said, I'm just speaking from experience- If a couple has just a bit of money to spend, I would HIGHLY recommend that they try not to think in terms of getting a complete package for that $500-$1000. If they know a friend who can capture the wedding day even half as decently as my assistant did in the above images, they're going to be happy. But, on the flip side, as I said before- portraiture is what takes real skill and experience, and the bride and groom will notice the biggest difference in that area.

Thanks to the digital age, you don't have to be a professional, or even have much experience at all, to capture great candid moments. Yes, a professional will get a better artistic capture of those candid moments and there will be more of them captured, but if you only have so much to spend, that's not where you want to spend it. The $500 complete package is almost always going to come from someone not as experienced at portraiture...

My mom does not like "creative" photography. Which means when I shoot for her, everything is centered, people have to look AT the camera, and they always have to smile. And if I tilt something, she laughs and thinks I made a mistake. If my wedding pictures had looked like a lot of the pictures that other photographers here have posted, she wouldn't have purchased any of them.

OMG! I had an assistant once who was going through that "tilted camera" phase. I almost killed him when I reviewed the photos. Argh!

Along those lines in general- I do agree, we *should* make sure to quickly snap the "safe" shot that grandma will want. But part of being a SKILLED photographer, a skilled ARTIST, is to get that safe shot immediately and effortlessly, thus freeing yourself to quickly get into your own creative style...

I try to as much as possible. I'm still learning a lot and trying to utilize as much as I can as often as I can. When shooting in RAW though, aside form exposing properly, what else can you do to make the little preview jpg for your LCD look "outstanding"? A RAW file is just that...RAW.

Quick tip: If you're shooting RAW, take advantage of the fact that your in-camera settings DON'T affect the final image, by cranking up the contrast almost all the way, boost the saturation a little if it's not going to make their skin look bad, etc. I shoot both RAW and JPG during a wedding, and when I'm shooting RAW I have a specific preset I made on my D300 called "RAW Preview" that basically has ALL the settings cranked. I know it hampers your ability to judge the quality of the *actual* RAW file, but that will come quite naturally after you've seen tens of thousands of histograms, hahah... The advantage you gain, that WOW factor on the back of the camera, is worth it in my opinion. (Especially if you have one of the current generation Nikon / Canon bodies, with that high-res 3" LCD!)

Good luck to all!
=Matt=

Cygnus Studios · February 22, 2009

Matthew Saville wrote:

First of all, I was not advising that a couple completely do WITHOUT any photos at all on their wedding day. What I'm saying is, get 2-3 friends to shoot the ceremony etc. for free, in addition to spending money on the portrait session. Sorry for any confusion!

That makes better sense.
The last wedding that I attended the couple had disposable cameras placed at each table (reception). I liked the idea. The photographer worked the ceremony but did not do the reception, but they got several hundred snap shots from all the visitors.

happysmileylady · February 22, 2009

I know exactly what you mean. My grandmother is the same way. Tonight I was taking some macro shots of my almost 6 month old nieces feet, and my grandma was just laughing at me. But they were oh so adorable. I just told her, "grandma, it's art".

While I do agree with your post to a certain extent, it's not entirely true. I mean yeah with family members they are going to want you to shoot for them because of the relationship, so you change your style so they'll be happy with what they are getting. But when it comes to a customer or future customer, they are making that phone call to you because they like your style and want that style. If they don't like your angles, and all that other artsy fartsy stuff, your phone won't ring, or email won't ding (I have a mac, so it does that).

Well, I don't mean change up your style for every customer, rather that if people like your work enough to pay you, that says as much or more about your work than whether or not another photographer who isn't paying you.

OMG! I had an assistant once who was going through that "tilted camera" phase. I almost killed him when I reviewed the photos. Argh!

Along those lines in general- I do agree, we *should* make sure to quickly snap the "safe" shot that grandma will want. But part of being a SKILLED photographer, a skilled ARTIST, is to get that safe shot immediately and effortlessly, thus freeing yourself to quickly get into your own creative style...

he he, I have seen one photographer's work where every other image was tilted. Made me a little nuts. And I do agree with this statement completely.

PackingMyBags · February 22, 2009

Candid Arts wrote:

So reading this thread here, I've come to question my own photos of weddings. I've only shot three weddings, and obviously don't think of myself as a pro, or even semi-pro, wedding photographer, and also obviously know I have a lot of areas to improve upon.

I am curious as to what some of you, and the pro's, have to say about my photos. What made me curious is this fellow in the other thread looked at the photos posted, and told the poor guy to never shoot a wedding again. Now I didn't think the photos were that bad, with actually a few good/potentially great ones. But with this fellows reaction, I started to question my own "beginner" abilities. There are a bunch of photos from each of the three weddings, so I'm not going to post actual photos, instead just the links.

Fixed. Sorry to inform, but im not a girl.

No offense taken though.

Like many said you have some nice pics. Just add a little PP and im sure most of them will look quite nice. I think like you ive also been learning a lot between these two threads. Keep up the good work.

Candid Arts · February 22, 2009

Matthew Saville wrote:

1.)[edit] Oh, and one more thing- Post processing is important, but as a rule of thumb you should be able to show people the image on the back of the camera and wow them. DO NOT focus on Photoshop skills more than shooting skills, EVER.

Having said all this, what do you think about this thread posted here?

Candid Arts · February 22, 2009

PackingMyBags wrote:

Fixed. Sorry to inform, but im not a girl. No offense taken though.

Like many said you have some nice pics. Just add a little PP and im sure most of them will look quite nice. I think like you ive also been learning a lot between these two threads. Keep up the good work.

hahaha. SORRY!

Thank you. There have most certainly been some great information posted in both threads.

Cygnus Studios · February 22, 2009

Candid Arts wrote:

Having said all this, what do you think about this thread posted here?

When I moved to the D3 I had a brand new learning curve with the histogram. I read through the post several times and bookmarked it. I believe there is some great info contained.

Blurmore · February 23, 2009

I'm just going to go out on a limb here...this is not directed at anyone in particular.

If you are a "wedding photographer" and SERIOUSLY consider yourself "an artist" you are just a pompous, ass puffed up on your own ego. If that gets you clients all the better for you. Wedding photography is SOCIAL photography, neither technical merit, nor artistic sense, nor personality alone can win the day. But personality can go a LONG way to making a competent or even average photographer into a client favorite, and being an elitist jerk can go a long way to making an extraordinary photographer hated by everyone at an event. It isn't all about your pictures...and anyone who has done it for a few years knows this.

So far as shooting for free/not shooting again/learning/whatever goes....

I don't have a huge experience with shooting a "first wedding" and I've never shot one for free. I assisted for 2 years before shooting my "first wedding" (with a Hasselblad, a light meter, a vivitar 283, a photogenic strobe, a long extension cord and a westcott halo) which I felt I was pretty prepared for after my training. I think everyone should be paid to shoot. If you are good enough to be asked to work, you should be paid. I can look at work that I did 4 years ago and see flaws, I can also see merit. I can see passion that I lost, in leiu of techinque that I mastered. I can look at things I shoot today that are second nature, that I think I should revisit because they have become to comfortable. What WE do is a process, when you have become "IT" and decided that you have "gotten there" or "arrived" you have really lost it. The job IS taking chances, it is evolving your style, and it is making mistakes, from day 1 to year 30.

Candid Arts · February 23, 2009

Blurmore wrote:

If you are a "wedding photographer" and SERIOUSLY consider yourself "an artist" you are just a pompous, ass puffed up on your own ego.

What if you're an artist that shoots weddings because they pay? Why can't you be an social artist? By your definition of wedding photography is just social photography. My grandma couldn't do it as good as I do. She can't see the potential in a scene, or in a photograph to edit. Editing has its own artistic expression and value in it as well.

I think you need to brush up on what is art, what takes an artistic eye, hand, brain, what drives art, and...just art in general.

I'm not saying I consider myself either. Right now I just consider myself a photographer. Is that okay with you?

Swartzy · February 23, 2009

Wedding photography is SOCIAL photography, neither technical merit, nor artistic sense, nor personality alone can win the day. But personality can go a LONG way to making a competent or even average photographer into a client favorite, and being an elitist jerk can go a long way to making an extraordinary photographer hated by everyone at an event. It isn't all about your pictures...and anyone who has done it for a few years knows this.

Oh, how true this is...and it isn't akin to only the photography world. Weddings are events, events are social, people gather, we photograph them interacting, being together, responding to one another/with one another. We capture the "essence" of moments...this is the place, the definition so often called "art". How well one captures the essence of a scene, mood, event, momentary highlight (call it what you will), defines one's "interpretation" of the given moment. That "interpretation" is also considered "art". But, like most things that are translated as "art", there resides a holier than thou stigma, so ever present within that work.

There is skill involved in event shooting. One must know the technical side and have the inate abliltiy to capture the "essence" of moments but MUST be a good people person. I agree, the individual with a great personality will go much farther in client building/retention than someone who simply does great work but has the personality of a brick. I truly believe you can be both and you should have if you want to do this for pay. The best advise I could ever give..............get over yourself, it's not about you, your vision, your art, your accomplishments. Strive to improve daily both with your craft and your character. Touch people's lives and you'll be touched.

Candid Arts · February 23, 2009

So it seemed that the main consensus was that my biggest pitfall with the wedding photos previously posted in my first post was PP... Aside from other technical things that I obviously can try and fix and work on 'till my next wedding.

I went through one of the weddings, that I actually had the RAW files of (apparently the others were both shot in jpeg because that's what they lady I was shooting for shot in), and re-edited some of them with my current knowledge of PP. All were just done in LR2, with the exception of one photo, where I put it into CS3, made a duplicate layer, erased the background, and brought the exposure down on the brides dress. With new features in LR (version 2.2 over the 1.x I had when I first did these) and new knowledge, I was actually able to keep a bunch of the photos in color. I did some cropping where I could if needed as well as some other minor adjustments.

Here is the link again to the first batch of edited photos:

http://candidartsphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/6107676_s2XY9#383920626_ja7Kb

And here is the link to the new ones. I didn't edit all of them again...yet...But did a few that I felt portrayed some sort of emotion, plus just a couple extra fun ones:

http://candidartsphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/7431670_65JXD#479096331_zMR9e

So have at it. Let me know what you think. If I did better, where I improved. If it's worse, why it's worse. Etc...

Thanks everyone for your input, this has proven to be a very useful thread beyond what I started it to be.

catspaw · February 23, 2009

It's also been highly educational for other folks like me and others who have chimed in. thanks everyone!

Blurmore · February 23, 2009

Candid Arts wrote:

What if you're an artist that shoots weddings because they pay? Why can't you be an social artist? By your definition of wedding photography is just social photography. My grandma couldn't do it as good as I do. She can't see the potential in a scene, or in a photograph to edit. Editing has its own artistic expression and value in it as well.

I think you need to brush up on what is art, what takes an artistic eye, hand, brain, what drives art, and...just art in general.

I'm not saying I consider myself either. Right now I just consider myself a photographer. Is that okay with you?

My comments as I said were directed at no one in particular and certainly not you, by your username or otherwise. My definition of "art" may be a little narrow. I will further clarify why I don't consider social photography art. I believe art springs from personal expression, from a need for an individual to express oneself absolutely and without compromise. An "artist" would go into every wedding and apply their "vision" to every job without regard for the client's preference or sensibility. While I believe it is possible that there are photographers who have photographed weddings this way, I doubt many of them KEEP photographing weddings very long. Good social photographers are stylistic chameleons, tailoring their photographs to the client's taste. I also believe that there is too much seperation between photographer and event emotionally to consider the process art. We as photographers portray, capture, and possibly even embelish the emotions others are feeling on their important day, but are we really connected to it? Sure moving moments at a wedding have touched me, they happen at almost every wedding, but they are not MY moments and not MY emotions.
I consider social photography to be a craft, and I consider myself a craftsman, many people draw little distinction between craftsman and artist, and that is ok with me. Sorry for my harsh tone if you consider yourself an artist and your wedding photography art. Art is afterall subjective, and far be it for me to try to define it for someone else.

Jazmyn76 · February 23, 2009

catspaw wrote:

It's also been highly educational for other folks like me and others who have chimed in. thanks everyone!

ditto to that!

Candid Arts · February 23, 2009

Blurmore wrote:

My comments as I said were directed at no one in particular and certainly not you, by your username or otherwise. My definition of "art" may be a little narrow. I will further clarify why I don't consider social photography art. I believe art springs from personal expression, from a need for an individual to express oneself absolutely and without compromise. An "artist" would go into every wedding and apply their "vision" to every job without regard for the client's preference or sensibility. While I believe it is possible that there are photographers who have photographed weddings this way, I doubt many of them KEEP photographing weddings very long. Good social photographers are stylistic chameleons, tailoring their photographs to the client's taste. I also believe that there is too much seperation between photographer and event emotionally to consider the process art. We as photographers portray, capture, and possibly even embelish the emotions others are feeling on their important day, but are we really connected to it? Sure moving moments at a wedding have touched me, they happen at almost every wedding, but they are not MY moments and not MY emotions.
I consider social photography to be a craft, and I consider myself a craftsman, many people draw little distinction between craftsman and artist, and that is ok with me. Sorry for my harsh tone if you consider yourself an artist and your wedding photography art. Art is afterall subjective, and far be it for me to try to define it for someone else.

Ok, worded that way I can agree with you more. I still think that there is need for a certain artistic talent to shoot a wedding. It's not 100% about capturing the emotion of everyone else at that moment (although like 98% of it is...). There are also the "stuff" shots, flowers, decoration, dinner wear, rings, shoes, dresses, etc...that I believe is where the "artist" in a "wedding photographer" get's to come out and shine at it's most. Craft is inherent in almost any form of art. In sculpture, painting, illustration, design, performance, video, whatever, the artist is crafting his ideas and emotions into something viewable. In the case of wedding photography, granted it is their emotions you are portraying in your work, but it's you're way of portraying it. No one else is gonna see the same things you saw, the same way you saw it. You're going to pose the people, with certain backgrounds, certain props held in certain ways. There in lies the art of wedding photography and the artists role in that type of documentation.

Ok, gotta go back to class in art school, learning everything we are discussing here...

Qarik · February 23, 2009

I looked at the 3rd gallery. Your technique appears good for the most part. They are in focus and framed well. Thats no small thing.

I feel the images are just a touch dark though.

The main thing that stands out to me is that is lack of variety in the shots as well as a subdued mood. Perhaps the BW treatment is adding to this. I don't get much of sense of joy when I look through the set.

Candid Arts · February 23, 2009

Qarik wrote:

I looked at the 3rd gallery. Your technique appears good for the most part. They are in focus and framed well. Thats no small thing. I feel the images are just a touch dark though.

The main thing that stands out to me is that is lack of variety in the shots as well as a subdued mood. Perhaps the BW treatment is adding to this. I don't get much of sense of joy when I look through the set.

Thanks for your comments. Have you checked out the latest? I posted a later post after re-processing the photos now that I've gained knowledge and software to do so. It's all explained here:

Candid Arts wrote:

So it seemed that the main consensus was that my biggest pitfall with the wedding photos previously posted in my first post was PP... Aside from other technical things that I obviously can try and fix and work on 'till my next wedding.

I went through one of the weddings, that I actually had the RAW files of (apparently the others were both shot in jpeg because that's what they lady I was shooting for shot in), and re-edited some of them with my current knowledge of PP. All were just done in LR2, with the exception of one photo, where I put it into CS3, made a duplicate layer, erased the background, and brought the exposure down on the brides dress. With new features in LR (version 2.2 over the 1.x I had when I first did these) and new knowledge, I was actually able to keep a bunch of the photos in color. I did some cropping where I could if needed as well as some other minor adjustments.

Here is the link again to the first batch of edited photos:

http://candidartsphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/6107676_s2XY9#383920626_ja7Kb

And here is the link to the new ones. I didn't edit all of them again...yet...But did a few that I felt portrayed some sort of emotion, plus just a couple extra fun ones:

http://candidartsphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/7431670_65JXD#479096331_zMR9e

So have at it. Let me know what you think. If I did better, where I improved. If it's worse, why it's worse. Etc...

Thanks everyone for your input, this has proven to be a very useful thread beyond what I started it to be.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the new treatment...

Qarik · February 23, 2009

The color definitely helps..though it is still just a touch dark for me. Could be my monitor though. I do like that the images are very clean and you culled well. I would venture to say techinically these are very good amateur type shots and would beat "some" so called pros.

Candid Arts · February 23, 2009

Qarik wrote:

The color definitely helps..though it is still just a touch dark for me. Could be my monitor though. I do like that the images are very clean and you culled well. I would venture to say techinically these are very good amateur type shots and would beat "some" so called pros.

Didn't want to bring up the exposure too much, as the dress started to get blown out. I tend to make my pictures a little darker than normal anyways, something I usually do on purpose, however these I think just were metering differently than they should have (operator error entirely I presume).

Thank you for the compliments. These are not all of them though, there are more that I would go back and edit, and will depending on the thoughts on the new ones. But it sounds like they are a bit better than the first edited batch, so I'm sure I'll be going through them all again.

Matthew Saville · February 23, 2009

Blurmore wrote:

If you are a "wedding photographer" and SERIOUSLY consider yourself "an artist" you are just a pompous, ass puffed up on your own ego.

Oh, the irony...
1.) I am by far my own worst critic. I don't know about other photographers, but my ego is constantly obliterated.

2.) Wedding photography can't possibly be an art? I disagree. Calling yourself an artist? Pompous indeed, and I actually loathe being called an artist in that "artiste" sense. I also dislike the whole "fine art" title that people sometimes give to random collections of photos. But by definition we ARE all artists at something, as long as we are skillful at creating, performing, etc... If you want to go by your own standards for what defines "art", then you're welcome to do so. However...

*shrug*

Wedding photography is SOCIAL photography, neither technical merit, nor artistic sense, nor personality alone can win the day.

Then I would argue that a wedding day is one of the most difficult situations in which to deliver artistic results... Or craftsy results?

But personality can go a LONG way to making a competent or even average photographer into a client favorite, and being an elitist jerk can go a long way to making an extraordinary photographer hated by everyone at an event. It isn't all about your pictures...and anyone who has done it for a few years knows this.

I don't even need to go there. An elitist jerk hated by everyone at an event? Wow... Good thing you put "not directed at anyone in particular..." at the beginning of all this...

...I assisted for 2 years before shooting my "first wedding"

Awesome! I wish I had started that way too, and all I'm doing here is encouraging others to follow suit...

...when you have become "IT" and decided that you have "gotten there" or "arrived" you have really lost it. The job IS taking chances, it is evolving your style, and it is making mistakes, from day 1 to year 30.

By far the greatest feeling I have when walking away from EVERY wedding I shoot is, "I CAN and WILL do MUCH better next time!" I just love that feeling.

Again, watch Zack Arias' video.

http://www.zarias.com/?p=284

=Matt=

Matthew Saville · February 23, 2009

Candid Arts wrote:

So have at it. Let me know what you think. If I did better, where I improved. If it's worse, why it's worse. Etc...

Thanks everyone for your input, this has proven to be a very useful thread beyond what I started it to be.

The photos look pretty good!

Still, do focus on practice behind the camera in general. That is by far the biggest improvement that anyone can make in most every stage of their photography... I hardly even use Photoshop anymore now actually, unless people are ordering retouched prints. I just do basic quickie color / black point corrections in Bridge CS3, since it can edit RAW and JPG files side by side...

=Matt=

Hmmm...Could it be true?

Comments