# Wedding photography



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

No, I'm not asking ehMac'ers to do me a favour at a low, low price.

But I am looking for a photographer, and wow, is it ever amazing what people put out there and then describe as 'professional photography'. And I'm not really a photographer, so it's not like I'm even seeing all the finer points about what's wrong.

Seeing things like lots of weird angles on almost every shot; colours that don't look right; odd and funky tinting for every photo; portfolios that are 90% BW or sepia-toned; this overexposed look that seems to be trendy but for some people seems to be the only kind of photo they can take; photos faded out to darkened corners on every single shot (I assume this is a lens or Photoshop effect); strangely posed photos that just look odd; portfolios that contain nothing but extreme close-ups of particular details which leaves me wondering if they are capable of any other kind of shot....

Most of these things, used judiciously, can look fantastic. A lot of what I'm seeing doesn't seem to be that. Especially the online portfolio doesn't have a single single 'normal' shot... personally, I think using arty tricks on every single shot does not a good photographer make.

Personal favourite so far as a black and white shot where the bouquet and the brides hands were in full colour... so her arm went from grey to colour at the wrist. Strange.

Granted, budget concerns have me looking in the low end of the market, and I think there's a lot of truth to the adage 'you get what you pay for' but even at out-of-budget pricing, there's still a lot of odd stuff out there.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Couldn't agree more, Sonal. We're seeing the same kind of portfolios here, and we refuse to pay those prices. Suggestions (general or local), anyone?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Welcome to the world of the Weekend Warrior, where their solution to stand out from the crowd is every freakin' ugly, kitschy, overused, abominable effect they can produce via a single keystroke with a Photoshop plugin. Don't let Uncle John with his brand new kit talk you into doing a "really good job" for you.

There are photographers who can offer solid work at a reasonable price, the issue is separating the wheat from the chaff. Have a look in the phone book, start making calls. Find out how long they've been in business. Don't even talk to anyone who hasn't been in business for at least 5 years, preferably 10 or more. Yes, that's a cold, arbitrary number that may eliminate perfectly good professionals, but there aren't many WW's who have been around that long. The older the studio, the less they'll depend on the weird stuff & the more their work will speak for itself. Ask what style their photography is. Listen for keywords like "traditional" style, as opposed to "contemporary", which can mean all the weird stuff.

As far as your price range is concerned, unfortunately, that is where most of the weekend warriors & garbage photography operates: at the low end. "10,000 photos for $79.95, each a unique & fantastic piece of art, guaranteed..." or some such drivel. 

Try to budget for $2000-$2500 minimum. This is generally out of the range of the WW's. Decide if you want portraits, albums or both. Make sure your photographer has a studio. Most pros will have one, WW's won't. Have a look at portfolios other than their wedding line to see what breadth they have. Sit down & talk with potential studios, have a look at their finished product. Is their vision yours? If not, don't waste any more of your time. Don't be afraid to sit down with as many studios as necessary to get what you are looking for. Let them know that standing on your head in 3 feet of water at the local lake is not the style you're looking for. 

*Make sure that everything is written out on a contract so there will not be any surprises for either party.*

I would suggest getting coverage of the ceremony & formals (or informals, as it were) afterwards. Good outdoor photos look better than studio results but make sure they have a studio contingency plan in case of bad weather (one more reason to have a studio). Usually there isn't a need for professional reception/dance coverage. You can purchase a handful of disposable cameras, leave a couple at each table & let the guests take photos for you. Just have them leave them at the door when they go. This is an area where you may be willing to take Uncle John up on his offer. If he gets some shots, great! If not, you haven't lost much.

Photography should be one of the first things you start planning. Good studios will book full quickly.

Good luck.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

In a different life I managed custom photo labs. I cannot count the number of botched weddings I saw, usually done by some well meaning friend or relative. No matter how good the photographers is, somehow weddings have a way of bringing out the creative idiot in some otherwise very competent photographers.

Please take your time and find someone that specializes in weddings as their full time profession or at the very least does them in addition to portrait work. If his samples consistently please you then chances are good you will like what he does for you. If you do not feel comfortable take that as a warning and look elsewhere.

Many really good photographers refuse to do weddings. This is because with weddings there is no safety net. There are no makeovers. Someone that does not absolutely thrive on this sort of pressure is better off making their living in some other manner.

Good luck with your search and may yours be a long and happy union.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Ha, ha, as FeXL said, welcome to the world of WW and wannabees where every so called "creative" shot is instantly copied by 10,000,000 wedding photographers overnight.

So, you don't like selective colour, flare shots, vignettes, off-colour tinting, tilt-shift lenses for portraits, cut-off heads and all black and white? What would Jeff Ascough who's considered one of the worlds best wedding photographers say...eh? 

I guess very few brides these days want traditional wedding photography, most want the gimmicks and even the really talented photogs relent if they want to make the sale in a hugely competitive market where everyone with a digital Rebel and a kit lens thinks they are the next Yervant or Jasmine Star. Both at the top of their game, but do they deserve the world class reputation? Well, only their clients know for sure.

These two locals are my favourites who I think are not only good, but can and will adjust to the client's needs. Have no idea as to their prices, but don't expect bargain basement rates.

I wont hot link as most photogs pay close attention to their web stats.

<<links removed as they're no longer needed>>

...and I like FeXL's idea of only hiring a pro for the ceremony and formals. In that case a good traditional studio will be the ideal choice on your part.

Just make sure you don't hire this guy:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

One more thing...

There's been a recent trend (say, last couple of years) whereby the "formals" are photographed prior to the wedding day (a day or week before). The main reason for this is to reduce the stress of a crazy schedule on your wedding day. Generally speaking, the images are better because you can relax more, not having to worry about all the running around. Then, on the wedding day you get the ceremony covered, throw in a few groups with the wedding party/parents, done! This also enables you to confirm your hair/makeup decision.

This may contravene whatever superstitions you may have about your dress being seen by the groom prior to the wedding day, something my spice was adamant about.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Wow, thanks for the advice and voice of experience everyone. Based on all this, I'm feeling really good about the person I'm meeting this afternoon. No weekend warrior, but freelance photographer for about 10 years or so. Has a studio. Perhaps the only possible qualm is that she doesn't do a lot of weddings (she's offering a really great rate right now in order to increase her wedding portfolio--I googled and managed to find her regular rate to confirm that this really is a deal) but there are several weddings in her online portfolio, and she says she has more to show us, and frankly, at the price I'm willing to pay I am very cognizant of the fact that I'm not going to be getting the number 1 wedding-person in the biz. (Though I'm now thinking that I might be lucking out and getting someone better than I'd hoped.) If she seems good in person, I think we'll book. 

I'm planning something rather non-traditional. Have decided to skip the whole photo session.... to be honest, I never looked at those photos after my last wedding, and it's always seemed a little odd to me to invite people to an event and then tell them to go twiddle their thumbs for a few hours while I get photos done. Planning to do the ceremony and reception all at once. No wedding party. No grand entrance and exit. Photos at the event only. This may be challenging, since it will be all indoors with party-appropriate lighting, so maybe we'll do some outdoor shots immediately prior though at the location we're at, outdoors involves a not-inexpensive permit. (I'm determined to have a non-stressful wedding, which apparently is an exercise calling a lot of stuff unnecessary and cutting it out.)

You know, I'm perfectly okay with not having the best photos. I figured that at the budget I want to stay at, my expectations are that as long as out of however many digital images, we get maybe a one or two reasonably decent shots of the two of us that we can print ourselves, frame, and hang on the wall, that's good enough. But it seems like the hardest this is finding someone who can just leave photos alone without fancying 'em up.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal, you'd be my ideal client. Practically zero expectations...LOL

If what you have seen of this photographer is acceptable to you, than you should be set.

Watch for the upsell after with respect to products. (albums, thank you cards, DVD etc.) get that sorted out at the meeting if you're going that route.

If you're getting a DVD of the images, make sure you have a release on the DVD for reproduction (print) rights. Otherwise you may have problems at many commercial labs without the photog's release.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Yes, keep in mind that the photographer owns the photos, and you have no rights to them other than what you contract for. 

The classic pre-digital model is that the photographer keeps the negs and you have to order all prints through them and pay for each.
With digital, there is a different model, which is delivery of the files, but you still need to contract that you get the high res files and the right to print them yourself. 

Also the photographer may want to retain rights to the images for use in their portfolio, or even to use commercially as advertising or stock photos. you need to determine your comfort level with this, and whether you need to restrict the use of the photos (for example, for the photographer's professional portfolio only, not to be published on the Internet)

Always have a backup plan. The photographer will NOT let anyone else take photos in the studio, but you can make clear that there will be other photos taken at the ceremony and reception. 

For example, if you are doing a video, I recommend setting up a second static video camera on a tripod, plugged into AC, and letting it run through the ceremony. That way you have a second source of footage that can cover missed shots and bad angles and equipment failure.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

FeXL said:


> Try to budget for $2000-$2500 minimum.


I appreciate all the commentary and suggestions. Maybe I'm just pig-headed and ignorant, but I think the whole model of a wedding is messed up if the photographer is the second-most expensive item in the budget. As it will be the second wedding for both of us, maybe Uncle John will get the call.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Well hey, kps, if you want to do me a favour at a low, low price.... in return for practically no expectations, you'll get practically no money. 

Good points, both of you. Last time I did this, I did things all traditional-like, and it was still the era of negatives. I got all the proofs, but never got around to actually ordering any prints... seems a little irrelevant now. 

We apparently get hi-res digital photos, but I'll ask specifically about rights to print them ourselves. I anticipating printing many photos (so if we have to do it through her that may be okay) but it's definitely something we should clarify. I'm fine with her using them for whatever purpose she needs them for, but I'm not interested in an album, thank you cards, photobook, etc.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Kazak said:


> I appreciate all the commentary and suggestions. Maybe I'm just pig-headed and ignorant, but I think the whole model of a wedding is messed up if the photographer is the second-most expensive item in the budget. As it will be the second wedding for both of us, maybe Uncle John will get the call.


Likewise, second for me, 1st for him, but I'm budgetting a lot less than this for photography. I know that's the going rate these days, but I'm willing to expect less and pay for less. 

I did see one guy who would do it for $225. He took my favourite photo so far, mentioned below. :lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Kazak said:


> Maybe I'm just pig-headed and ignorant, but I think the whole model of a wedding is messed up if the photographer is the second-most expensive item in the budget.


Not at all.

What it boils down to is your value system. Some people place a high value on photography & will gladly spend a premium amount of $$ on wedding, family, boudoir, pets, whatever. They will purposely look for the most expensive photographer they can afford.

Others place far less value on their photos and are perfectly happy with Sears rubber stamp style images.

Some people buy Mercedes, some buy Chevy. They both get the job done.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Well hey, kps, if you want to do me a favour at a low, low price.... in return for practically no expectations, you'll get practically no money.
> 
> Good points, both of you. Last time I did this, I did things all traditional-like, and it was still the era of negatives. I got all the proofs, but never got around to actually ordering any prints... seems a little irrelevant now.
> 
> We apparently get hi-res digital photos, but I'll ask specifically about rights to print them ourselves. I anticipating printing many photos (so if we have to do it through her that may be okay) but it's definitely something we should clarify. I'm fine with her using them for whatever purpose she needs them for, but I'm not interested in an album, thank you cards, photobook, etc.


Not sure I like the "practically no money" part... but if you fly FeXL out here to be the primary, I'll happily assist till the formals are over so me and Fex can retire to the open bar. 

Second timers are the easiest to please...and I'm speaking from personal experience. lol I joke that me and the Mrs _eloped _, got hitched in a civil ceremony in Collingwood on our way to our annual week in Thorbury. We then threw a big party at a golf course 6 months later. The only pics we have of the ceremony is the one's taken by us and the meter maid who doubled as a witness.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Likewise, second for me, 1st for him, but I'm budgetting a lot less than this for photography. I know that's the going rate these days, but I'm willing to expect less and pay for less.
> 
> I did see one guy who would do it for $225. He took my favourite photo so far, mentioned below. :lmao:


In the film era I would have said run don't walk as far away as you can get. However there is little or no basic material expense for digital images. Even so I can easily see printing expenses, album... exceeding $100 so we are talking about a photographer working for about $25/hour. Remember there is the time the photographer needs to spend learning what you want. Setting up and testing, the shoot, determining which images you and Aunt Mary and Cousin Flo want printed, having the images printed....

As it is, if you feel comfortable go for it but be sure to take a careful look at the images on his camera before getting lost in the rest of the celebrations. Brides do like to blink just as the flash fires.

Some of the photographers I worked with preferred to do a basic package then sell the negs to the bride roughly three months after the wedding. A couple of advantages to the photographer with this method. They typically charged $100-150 an amount that almost always exceeded any print orders that might come after the initial rush. More importantly, whether or not the client took advantage of the offer, it relieved the photographer from the responsibility of safely archiving those precious negs. 

In the digital era. I would be looking for a similar consideration. A CD or DVD of your wedding images. That said I am sure some photographers would be reluctant to do so. Stupid considering that a simple scan of a 4x6 print will almost certainly produce excellent second generation prints.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Not sure I like the "practically no money" part... but if you fly FeXL out here to be the primary, I'll happily assist till the formals are over so me and Fex can retire to the open bar.


Suddenly, I foresee you and FeXL surrounding the groom-to-be, plying him with alcohol, and talking about long white lenses.... I have a hunch that will cost me more in the end. 

Met with the photographer and we're going to go ahead with her. I think we got very lucky here. Her early professional work for a number of years was with a wedding photo studio and was all in film... she talked about how working with film taught her how to get things right the first time. She had a bunch of photos on an iPad to show us, and both of us liked her photos a lot--no fancy Photoshopping, just great, natural portraits. (She wants to get back into weddings, so she's trying to build up a bigger portfolio of wedding work that's in her style--hence, she's offering a deal.)

Kazak, if you lived here, I'd recommend her in a second.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Well, I'm glad you found one, Sonal. It gives me hope that there's probably someone here, too.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Kazak said:


> Well, I'm glad you found one, Sonal. It gives me hope that there's probably someone here, too.


There's a bazillion shoot & burn photographers in the Greater Vancouver area, I think that's your problem Kazak...there's just too darned many of them to choose from.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Suddenly, I foresee you and FeXL surrounding the groom-to-be, plying him with alcohol, and talking about long white lenses.... I have a hunch that will cost me more in the end.


Yeah....and then we'd have to compare as to who's got the biggest...lens that is.



> Met with the photographer and we're going to go ahead with her. I think we got very lucky here. <snip>.


If her film experience is legit, then you'll probably be good to go, but hey, you like her work and price, so that is all that counts. One less thing to worry about...enjoy the day!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Suddenly, I foresee you and FeXL surrounding the groom-to-be, plying him with alcohol, and talking about long white lenses.... I have a hunch that will cost me more in the end.


Sonal, that's so...true! Although, from what you've noted before, I'm guessing the liquor probably wouldn't be all that necessary.

Realistically, though, you really can't count such purchases as expenses. More like...investments. 

Congrats on your photographer find.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> Yeah....and then we'd have to compare as to who's got the biggest...lens that is.


You first...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Sonal, that's so...true! Although, from what you've noted before, I'm guessing the liquor probably wouldn't be all that necessary.
> 
> Realistically, though, you really can't count such purchases as expenses. More like...investments.


Read him this post, and he says "Well, they do keep their value..."


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

$2000-$2500 minimum?  Gadzooks man! 

My brother/ sister in-law spent $1800 on a well known and very good photographer. One of his SD cards went so they lost half of their shots. Plus, you know how many times they looked at the pics since then, almost 2 years go... NEVER!

My friend is a professional photographer and she normally would have cost $1200 but we saved a bit. We love her work and how you can suggest spending double that is crazy. I'm not saying to take the cheapest, but find someone you like. Even some new professional photographers are good and will give you a good price. 

I will own my negatives, and all rights too. She works for the Gov't as a photographer and does her own thing on the side. 

I told my fiance all I want is a collage frame with a dozen pics for our wall I can see all the time and am not spending more then $1000. Thankfully, she agreed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, to each their own indeed. We decided not to take any photos of our wedding back in 1965. Like most friends I know, I've not looked at a single one of them since, nor are they any longer displayed on the wall or mantle in our home.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

2000 - 2500 does seem to be the average for a good wedding photographer around here, though I know someone who charges about $4500. (Probably worth it, though, for the quality and service.) Unfortunately, I don't know him quite well enough to feel comfortable asking him to do this for a lot less, and frankly this is going to be a very simple wedding. (Or else!)

Mind you, like SINC, my experience from wedding #1 is that I never looked at the photos afterward, so to be honest, the money we spend on a good photographer was probably a waste. I bought into the whole "You'll be seeing these for the rest of your lives." As it turned out, no. 

Still, photos are probably more important to my fiance, since he does actually print and display stuff anyway, so we planned for around $1,000.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> $2000-$2500 minimum?  Gadzooks man!
> 
> My brother/ sister in-law spent $1800 on a well known and very good photographer. One of his SD cards went so they lost half of their shots. Plus, you know how many times they looked at the pics since then, almost 2 years go... NEVER!
> 
> ...


The reason I suggested that price is to eliminate all chance of being buggered about by WW's. They simply do not operate at that price range.

Your example of a "very good photographer" who lost images because of a bad SD card tells me that he is a rank amateur and an idiot. No professional I know shoots a wedding (especially a wedding) without images being backed up to a second card in camera and let's just say I know a few pros. 

As far as to how many times they've looked at the images, how does that equate to initial price? Doesn't matter if they looked at them once or 100 times, that's their call & the photographer has absolutely no control over it. If they were satisfied that they received value at the asking price then it was worth it.

$2000 wedding packages are not "crazy", they're pretty "normal". It all depends on what you want and how much value you place on photography. I have a colleague out in Virginia Beach on the east coast, all he does is weddings, generally around 40/year. He grosses a quarter of a million dollars a year. I'll let you do the math. He doesn't consider himself high end.

As I noted in my post, the problem with $500-$1500 photographers is separating the wheat from the chaff. Are there decent professionals at that price? Absolutely! The problem lies in that there are probably a dozen or more crappy WW's in that price range for every professional out there. Some people will take the time to dig through a mile of dung to find the diamond. For me, there just isn't enough shiny to make all my time worth it. I'll write out a cheque for another grand just so I don't have to spend the next two months online/in dark basement "studios" with 7 foot ceilings trying to figger out if I should get the $495 special with the free t-shirt or the $595 special with the free wedding night accommodations down at the local flea bag hotel. Baby Duck is optional...

It sounds like Sonal got lucky with her photog with minimal time invested, good for her. I'll guarantee you not everyone is going to be that successful and many will get flat out burned by the end product. But that webpage sure looked flashy...

Hey, your photo requirements are just that: yours. You want a $1000 collage, good for you. I'm not trying to sell anyone a bill of goods here. I don't even have a dog in the hunt 'cause we stopped covering weddings over 4 years ago. Couple people here asked for advice, as a professional photographer, I offered mine. Take as much or as little as you like...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Had the search for a somewhat decent photographer at the price gotten annoying and frustrating, I think the budget would have gone up. I have only so much tolerance for separating wheat from chaff.

Was very surprised at the sheer volume of chaff though.


----------



## Cris Rock (Mar 17, 2008)

Sonal said:


> Wow, thanks for the advice and voice of experience everyone. Based on all this, I'm feeling really good about the person I'm meeting this afternoon. No weekend warrior, but freelance photographer for about 10 years or so. Has a studio. Perhaps the only possible qualm is that she doesn't do a lot of weddings (she's offering a really great rate right now in order to increase her wedding portfolio--I googled and managed to find her regular rate to confirm that this really is a deal) but there are several weddings in her online portfolio, and she says she has more to show us, and frankly, at the price I'm willing to pay I am very cognizant of the fact that I'm not going to be getting the number 1 wedding-person in the biz. (Though I'm now thinking that I might be lucking out and getting someone better than I'd hoped.) If she seems good in person, I think we'll book.
> 
> I'm planning something rather non-traditional. Have decided to skip the whole photo session.... to be honest, I never looked at those photos after my last wedding, and it's always seemed a little odd to me to invite people to an event and then tell them to go twiddle their thumbs for a few hours while I get photos done. Planning to do the ceremony and reception all at once. No wedding party. No grand entrance and exit. Photos at the event only. This may be challenging, since it will be all indoors with party-appropriate lighting, so maybe we'll do some outdoor shots immediately prior though at the location we're at, outdoors involves a not-inexpensive permit. (I'm determined to have a non-stressful wedding, which apparently is an exercise calling a lot of stuff unnecessary and cutting it out.)
> 
> You know, I'm perfectly okay with not having the best photos. I figured that at the budget I want to stay at, my expectations are that as long as out of however many digital images, we get maybe a one or two reasonably decent shots of the two of us that we can print ourselves, frame, and hang on the wall, that's good enough. But it seems like the hardest this is finding someone who can just leave photos alone without fancying 'em up.


I skimmed through some posts. I would like to recommend my friend. His website is michaeltphotography.com » Toronto Wedding Photographer, Corporate Photography, Golf Photography
He makes a living from wedding photography. A very personable guy. I can't tell you if his rates are competitive or not because I was married before we became truly good friends.
As you will see if you check out his website, he has and does a variety of weddings.
He is also the reason why I love Macs! He has a nice studio at home.

Check him out.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Thanks for the recommendation Cris. I think I've found someone closer to my style and budget, but someone else may appreciate the recommendation.

Here's the person I found... there's not much wedding photography on her website (she explained why in person) but I definitely liked her.
Lisa Petrole Photography
Lisa Shoots Weddings


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

People, please take RunTheWorldOnMac's advice, or the pricing advice of any Federal employee in the Ottawa area, with more than a few grains of salt.

As a resident of this weird, paradoxical city, I am constantly embarrassed by the miserly nature of my friends who work for the Federal service.

Federal employees in Ottawa are world-renowned for one thing, and pretty much one thing only, their incredible *cheapness*. (I wish I was kidding.  )

My artist friends who are based in Ottawa lament how they must mainly rely on sales to Montreal and Toronto residents, as Federally-employed Ottawa residents simply will not pay for original art. 

So when a resident of the Ottawa valley, especially one who works for the Feds, gives you pricing advice, well ...


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> ... We decided not to take any photos of our wedding ... I've not looked at a single one of them since...


 SINC, you're killin' me, Man! :lmao:


----------



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Here's the person I found... there's not much wedding photography on her website (she explained why in person) but I definitely liked her.
> Lisa Petrole Photography
> Lisa Shoots Weddings


I can definitely tell she doesn't specialize in weddings. Her wedding photos are meh... ok I guess, nothing that pops out. Her landscape and interior photography is fantastic though.

How much is she charging? and for how long? that's if you don't mind sharing.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

phuviano said:


> I can definitely tell she doesn't specialize in weddings. Her wedding photos are meh... ok I guess, nothing that pops out. Her landscape and interior photography is fantastic though.
> 
> How much is she charging? and for how long? that's if you don't mind sharing.


She offers a $1000 special for 6 hrs if you book in December, so I'll guess that's the deal Sonal went for...which is on par with her wedding portfolio and skills. Only products included is a DVD and a web gallery.

Her wedding images do seem quite anemic, don't they. Her technical skills are good, so she knows her camera(s). Also notice some reluctance to use flash and off camera lighting. I think she should seriously consider doing some second shooting with established wedding photographers or take some workshops offered by some of the better wedding shooters out there.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

SoyMac said:


> SINC, you're killin' me, Man! :lmao:


But in a good way!


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

I dunno guys. It seems like you're being pretty critical of Lisa's work. I don't know her but she seems to have a great eye for candid shots which are far more interesting than the run of the mill wedding shots I've seen of a lot of "pro" studios. That said we paid about 3x that and got some really great photos. (for our parents) We probably won't look at them once we're done sorting through them for the folks.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

She has other photos offline... a lot of the recent wedding photography is work she was doing for a friend's studio (covering her while her friend took mat leave) so she doesn't put those on her website. Hence a need to build up a wedding portfolio under her own name and in her own style.

In any case, I'm happy with the choice.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> She has other photos offline... a lot of the recent wedding photography is work she was doing for a friend's studio (covering her while her friend took mat leave) so she doesn't put those on her website. Hence a need to build up a wedding portfolio under her own name and in her own style.
> 
> In any case, I'm happy with the choice.


Don't get me wrong, I think you did very well with your choice, especially at that price. Lisa has skills and she's technically proficient, which you don't usually find at that price level. Her need for a better portfolio is your gain, but I still think that she needs to second shoot for an established wedding pro to expand her range.


----------



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

If you're paying around $1000 dollar mark for 6 hours, then you are getting your money's worth. I not saying the photographer is bad in any way. All i was saying is that her wedding photos that are posted online don't compare to her other photos. With her wedding photos, its just nothing stands out from what i see. Although, its hard to get photos that are unique since there are thousands of people (good and bad photogs) trying to do the same thing.

Sonal, as long as you're satisfied, thats all that matters. I was just stating my opinion from a hobbyist point of view.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Key is whether or not the bride likes the photographers work. In this case she does, so I think it's the right way to go.

My best selling landscape photo has zero redeeming compositional features, would get little but derision from experts but as I say it sold extremely well and the buyers like it.


----------

