| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/29/2007 01:40:19 PM · #101 |
And you know what man choose what feels good to you. The 2 best wedding photogs on this site use Nikon.  grigrigirl and  Pedro they are in a class by themselves so that should tell you something. Anyway have fun with this "Nuh uh" mines better thread don't let them baffle you with BS you will, in the end, have to get what feels right to you.
Good luck no matter what system you choose.
Message edited by author 2007-12-29 14:57:04. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 01:41:49 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
And you know what man chose what feels good to the 2 best wedding photogs on this site use Nikon. grigrigirl and Pedro they are in a class by them selves so that should tell you something. |
Very true!
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 03:15:56 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by option:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
many words |
While I agree with most of what you wrote... not everyone can afford a $2000+ photog for their wedding, and there aren't many photographers with $30k in gear that would be willing to shoot for under $500. |
WRONG! Completely and utterly WRONG! that is the WRONG mentality - get out of that mindset IMMEDIATELY!
I can't afford a Ferrari or a mansion and a 40 foot yacht - and no one is giving me a discount to get one! 'But it's not the same' you say and I say YES IT IS!
|
If you cant afford a Ferrari or a mansion or a 40 ft yacht, you buy a used Civic or a run down trailer or a dinghy with a hole in it, and accept the risks of purchasing shit thats already half broken. I don't see why photography has to be any different.
The key is honest communication between the photog and the couple. If you make them think you're hot shit and mess things up, you are essentially dead. The wife will hunt you down and kill you, and then bill your family for the bullet. If the couple is aware that they're hiring the "uncle bob" that their family doesn't have, they aren't going to be upset over a bunch of crappy photos.
Enough devils advocate though... If you have to ask on an internet forum what gear you'll need to do wedding photography... you probably shouldn't be doing wedding photography. Just a thought.
Message edited by author 2007-12-29 15:16:48. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 03:28:25 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by option:
If you cant afford a Ferrari or a mansion or a 40 ft yacht, you buy a used Civic or a run down trailer or a dinghy with a hole in it, and accept the risks of purchasing shit thats already half broken. I don't see why photography has to be any different.
The key is honest communication between the photog and the couple. If you make them think you're hot shit and mess things up, you are essentially dead. The wife will hunt you down and kill you, and then bill your family for the bullet. If the couple is aware that they're hiring the "uncle bob" that their family doesn't have, they aren't going to be upset over a bunch of crappy photos.
Enough devils advocate though... If you have to ask on an internet forum what gear you'll need to do wedding photography... you probably shouldn't be doing wedding photography. Just a thought. |
Because you are buying this equipment to work with, to generate money. You are claiming to be a professional.
Yes, you can deliver gravel to my driveway in a 1965 pickup truck, but a 2007 mack 10 ton dump truck will work much better - no need to make 20 trips or shovel the load out of the truck.
Same thing with photography - a 70-200 2.8 IS is a lot more money than a 70-300 3.5-5.6 lens, BUT it will get images that you will miss with the cheaper lens, and those images will be sharper with better color anc contrast.
When it's a JOB, then time matters. If you get it right in-camera, you're done. If not, then you must spend the time to fix it in post production. You can't charge more for that, so you make less money (per hour) and do more work.
Same for high ISO noise - yes, you can run everything throug noise ninja, but A) you have to buy the software B)you have to do it (takes time, ties up the computer, wears out your HDs just a little bit more than if you didn't ahve to do it) and a NR'd image isn't as good as one that didn't need it.
A 40D can be turned on, focus, take the shot and display it on the LCD before a 20D is even turned on all the way. Does it matter? Hell yes. When the kid does something funny on the dance floor, or the bride turns and says "Take my picture with my cousin from France" you have but a split second to do it. Telling the '''Wait, my camera 's not on, I have to get focus...wait one more second till the old flash charges...well, the moment is gone forever. If they wanted that they'd have let Aunt Tilly take the pictures.
Originally posted by option:
Enough devils advocate though... If you have to ask on an internet forum what gear you'll need to do wedding photography... you probably shouldn't be doing wedding photography. Just a thought. |
Very true!
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 03:40:13 PM · #105 |
Chris, I've seen all your arguments before. But, you come across an elitist that thinks only HIS way is right. Not saying you are, just the way you come across with those arguments.
By your arguments, Gary Fong should be screaming at YOU for charging less than $120,000 to shoot a wedding. Why aren't you charging $120,000 for a wedding? Might be WHY you can't afford your yacht, huh?
When starting his career with used cameras in 1983, Fong had a start price of $150.00 per day. Too bad you weren't around to tell him he couldn't do it, huh?
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 04:57:16 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Chris, I've seen all your arguments before. But, you come across an elitist that thinks only HIS way is right. Not saying you are, just the way you come across with those arguments.
By your arguments, Gary Fong should be screaming at YOU for charging less than $120,000 to shoot a wedding. Why aren't you charging $120,000 for a wedding? Might be WHY you can't afford your yacht, huh?
When starting his career with used cameras in 1983, Fong had a start price of $150.00 per day. Too bad you weren't around to tell him he couldn't do it, huh? |
$150 in 1983 is about $750 today. For 8 hours of shooting that's about right.
You have options.
You can shoot 50 weddings at $1000.
or 25 at $2000.
or 12 at $4000.
The total money is about the same. The amount of work you have to do is NOT the same.
So I want $4000 a wedding.
I've shot weddings at the local VFW and had cold cuts for a meal. I've also shot at the country club and had prime rib. Guess where I'd rather spend my workday? You may choose differently.
So how does one get people to pay $4000 for their wedding photography?
Ask successful wedding photographers. Ask the photographers that are getting $4000, or $8000 or more for their photography. Then do what they do!
So I asked those making a living at weddings for 10 to 20 years. They all told me just about the same things. Good gear matters. Good vendors matter. Charge as much as possible. Sell albums not disks of images. Sell prints in frames, not loose.
Raise your prices. have a plan. When new charge a bit less than your competition. Want 20 weddings? Fine, book 20 and raise your prices. Book 10 more, raise them again. If your prices are right then about 70% of the clients you meet will book you. If 90% book, raise your prices. If 50% book then you're too high (for the area or what you deliver, etc).
Want to make more money for weddings? Get out of town clients - chicago, LA, DC, NYC, etc. Those places are more expensive so those clients spend more when they come 'home' to get married. Get weddings where MOM pays, NOT the couple. Mom/Dad will spend 50% more than the couple themselves.
When a bride is looking for photogs some shop by price alone, or date alone. Some actually choose based on the photography (imagine that!). The price difference between a 50 1.8 vs a 50 1.2 is about $1300. The $1000 bride won't care. The $4000 bride wont' care either - BUT she's also looking at OTHER photogs that charge $4000, and damn few of them are using $70 lenses and XTi's to shoot weddings.
What is your real problem with what I say? Am I wrong, is it bad advice? No. Are you afraid if you ask for more money no one will pay it? Ahh, your own insecurity then is the issue. If YOU don't feel your photography is worth what you are asking then clients won't pay it. You have to believe in yourself first, then they will.
Trust me, I am not the best photog out there by any means. I asked $900 and they paid. I asked $1400 and they paid. I asked $1800 and they paid. I asked $2400 and they paid. Last year I did a bridal show and I was the cheapest photog there. I booked 3 weddings. The most expensive booked 5. Hmm... The next show (same pricing) it just so happened that I was the second most expensive. I booked 6 weddings. Hmm....
I choose to copy the top earners, and that is the advice I pass along.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 05:01:06 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
And you know what man choose what feels good to you. The 2 best wedding photogs on this site use Nikon. grigrigirl and Pedro they are in a class by themselves so that should tell you something. Anyway have fun with this "Nuh uh" mines better thread don't let them baffle you with BS you will, in the end, have to get what feels right to you.
Good luck no matter what system you choose. |
//www.popphoto.com/americanphotofeatures/3854/the-top-10-wedding-photographers.html
the 10 best wedding photogs in the world. I believe 8 use Canon. Could be a coincidence, but personally I'm going to copy the best out there rather than go against the tide and hope I know more than they do. But then, that's me.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 05:25:24 PM · #108 |
But, why aren't you charging $120,000? Do you not want that yacht?
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 07:40:52 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
But, why aren't you charging $120,000? Do you not want that yacht? |
I'll add that package to my website right away.
I do offer a $1 million dollar package. Includes a 2 week all expenses honeymoon in Hawaii. No takers yet.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:38:01 PM · #110 |
Ok well thanks for the advice. Now, this seems like another discussion and is beginning to sound like discouragement. I know I am baffling some professionals with my questions, but you shouldn't be so exclusive. Why not welcome and educate someone trying to enter your area of work as opposed to discouraging them? I am a web developer by profession and I could probably have the same feelings you have about me about your individual web sites, but I'd rather learn from you than tell you not to bother with having a site because of your line of questioning/interest. Instead I would advise you they way many of you advised me thus far. This is the benefit of forums.
For what it's worth, I decided on d80+d200.
Thank for everyone's help. Happy holidays. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 10:25:06 PM · #111 |
Rahim,
Hang tight. Listen to the advice. Learn all you can. and practice.
In the end, we are all just people on the other side of an Internet connection. YOU can make it work, or it can work you. We all have opinions. Find someone you know and trust, and let them mentor you.
You will do fine. |
|
|
|
12/30/2007 12:41:21 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
But, why aren't you charging $120,000? Do you not want that yacht? |
I'll add that package to my website right away.
I do offer a $1 million dollar package. Includes a 2 week all expenses honeymoon in Hawaii. No takers yet. |
The reason is (and why I can't either) skill
(artistic, technical, business or otherwise) and talent and demand. He started out just like the rest of us, but through hard work and maybe some luck CAN demand $120,000 minimum. And, perhaps our friend here can too one day.
You say photos are luxury items, such as luxury cars. Good for you that Henry Ford and Louis Chevrolet decided that everyone should have a car.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread jack.  rsvirani feel free to pm me if you want advice, although I can't answer that Nikon/Canon problem. Read my tutorial if you haven't already. And check out the book, Mastering Digital Wedding Photography . It's a really good primer.
Maybe I should write a book instead of shooting. :-)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 01:37:47 AM · #113 |
Yay for choosing Nikon :P (I really don't care either way, although sticking with Canon/Nikon is smarter just because of a larger used market).
I feel a (VERY) strong urge to rant about the pompous people on this site thinking you shouldn't do weddings unless you have $20,000... (unless of course you are charging rediculous amounts of money for your first wedding, then it could be justified, god forbid we actually have a lower end to wedding photography *gasp*).
Renting lenses is a great idea. I didn't read all of the thread, but if you do a search for DIY (do-it-yourself) Photography, there are lots of little toys you can make for little or no money that can help someone achieve professional-looking images. I believe JoeyL {who is considered a God by many on this site) used, on a professional shoot no less, a homemade soft-box made out of a cardboard box, tinfoil, and a pillowcase. If this is going to be something you are going to be doing often, check out strobist.com (if you havn't already) for some amazing low-budget lighting techniques. I am just starting out into photography, and I see Strobist as a stepping stone for me until I get to the point where I can afford to have $20,000+ worth of equipment.
I just get so frustrated to see some photographers tear down other photographers that are trying to start out. Not all of us have $20,000 to drop on equipment. Let us start our photography careers with minimal stat-up costs.
Edit to add: You can make DIY Projects that look better than some of the ones floating around out there. I wouldn't dream of slapping together something that looks like something I stole from the dump. You can put a little bit of effort and make your DIY stuff look better. White and Black Gaffer's tape comes in really handy.
Message edited by author 2007-12-30 01:54:49. |
|
|
|
12/30/2007 02:07:51 AM · #114 |
Does that mean the two non-Canon shooters must be the best wedding photographers as they made the list without using Canon equipment ?
bazz.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 09:24:50 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by rsvirani:
Ok well thanks for the advice. Now, this seems like another discussion and is beginning to sound like discouragement. I know I am baffling some professionals with my questions, but you shouldn't be so exclusive. Why not welcome and educate someone trying to enter your area of work as opposed to discouraging them? I am a web developer by profession and I could probably have the same feelings you have about me about your individual web sites, but I'd rather learn from you than tell you not to bother with having a site because of your line of questioning/interest. Instead I would advise you they way many of you advised me thus far. This is the benefit of forums.
For what it's worth, I decided on d80+d200.
Thank for everyone's help. Happy holidays. |
Who do you work for? If I told you boss I'd do your job for half the money he's paying you, what would your opinion be then? While I know enough HTML and PERL to get the job, I don't know enough to DO the job.
Many jobs 'require' a bachelors degree, and these days that's 4 years of your life and $50,000 to $200,000 dollars. Once you get the job you realize that most of what you learned in college you'll never use.
Just because I can add 2 numbers and know a credit from a debit and what a 1040 and IRA are does not mean I am qualified to open an investment or tax return service.
Same for photography - you can take pictures. Everyone on this site can take pictures. Shooting a wedding professionally is as different as doing a 1040EZ is to doing the corp taxes for a small business.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 09:32:45 PM · #116 |
Will I be able to play piano after reading this thread?
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 09:33:22 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by LERtastic:
I feel a (VERY) strong urge to rant about the pompous people on this site thinking you shouldn't do weddings unless you have $20,000... (unless of course you are charging rediculous amounts of money for your first wedding, then it could be justified, god forbid we actually have a lower end to wedding photography *gasp*).
I just get so frustrated to see some photographers tear down other photographers that are trying to start out. Not all of us have $20,000 to drop on equipment. Let us start our photography careers with minimal stat-up costs.
|
Rant all you want. You can start a taxi business with a use cavalier. BUT ever notice that no taxi business runs cavaliers? Ever stop to wonder why? There must be a reason.
So yes, you can start a photography business with a disposable camera if you want. And take no advice and learn the hard way.
OR you can listen to those that have already done it. Perhaps you don't like what we have to say but we're not saying it to discourage you, but rather to save you the time, headache and costly mistakes that we have made.
Buy a plastic 70-300 4-5.6 lens and just try and get anything useable in a church during the service. Won't happen (95% of churches do not allow flash during the ceremony - distracting you know). Do you think I would have $1700 in a lens if a $200 lens would do the job? Of course not. But it's the tool that's require for teh job.
I could go on about the business aspect - why you need insurance, a business license, collecting sales tax, etc. Remember, you advertise for business. You have no idea who is going to walk in your door - the local sales tax collector, a lawyer for a client, someone planning to sue you cause they think it's an easy way to get rich. Perhaps it's a rather seedy photographer that likes to see newbies get in legal trouble rather than deal with the competition.
You may not want to hear it. It's called reality and it's out there. Hear it here and now, or hear it later from someone who has a vested interest in the discussion at hand.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 09:34:30 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Will I be able to play piano after reading this thread? |
No, but you too can play guitar!
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 09:35:05 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
Does that mean the two non-Canon shooters must be the best wedding photographers as they made the list without using Canon equipment ?
bazz. |
Some people just insist on doing things the hard way.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 10:59:19 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
So yes, you can start a photography business with a disposable camera if you want.
|
Bruno did it!
|
|
|
|
12/31/2007 02:05:00 AM · #121 |
| Youre not saving me the headache, youre telling me to not bother because im not starting out with $20 grand and 15 years experience. I asked for advice on cameras. If you want to just ping pong personal attacks and flex your photog muscles then start a new thread. Quit being insulted that others practice your main profession as a hobby and supplemental income, and realize that no one begins anything as a master. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 04:30:45 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Some people just insist on doing things the hard way. |
Yeah yeah I know but thats enough talk about you.
What about my original question ? 
And to the OP. If there was a real and tangible difference between systems then everyone here would agree about it.
Just get whatever fits within your budget and make a start.
4. Canon 40D + 28-135 IS @ $1445
5. Nikon D200 + 18-135mm @ $1665
These two options have the advantage of higher frame rates. You get around twice as many chances to get the money shot as with the other bodies you listed. Critically important when you can't go back and reshoot the scene.
bazz. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 07:37:54 AM · #123 |
Well I had originally looked at getting the D80. Decided against it- all plastic and I'd read and heard that they have a problem with moisture inside the camera ect. I also found out that you can't use the older manual focus lenses on them- not sure if that's true or not, but I've had 2 other nikon owners tell me that.
I personally would save for the the D200- you can get one refurbished on Amazon.com from Cameta for under 1200. Then I'd look for whatever lens you really want. I ended up getting the D200 refurbished, and 18-200mm VR lens for under 2200- saved 150 just by calling and ordering over the phone 20 of that shipping.
My husband also just got me a manual focus 50mm f1.8 lens for Christmas. I'm now on the hunt for other manual focus lenses because I am so impressed with it. He only paid 21 dollars for it off of ebay. And I've been told by some here you can find them for dirt cheap at pawn shops and flea markets.
Just a thought. I'm neither here nor there when it comes to Nikon vs Canon. I went with Nikon because I do a lot of outdoor work and I like what it does outside. Had I needed something for more inside work I would have gone with a Canon.
You could also see if you can find a used D100 out there. Check Craigslist, Ebay, and Amazon. I had this thing in my head where I had to buy new. In the end I got a refurbished factory demo and am very happy with it.
Message edited by author 2007-12-31 07:39:22. |
|
|
|
12/31/2007 08:57:22 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by rsvirani:
Hey guys,
I have been reading and reading about equipment nonstop. I am stuck at a dilemma. I want to buy a body+lens under $1200 (if possible) solely for wedding photography. I have basically come to these options (please suggest differently if inappropriate):
1. Nikon D80 + 18-135mm @ $1050
2. Nikon D40X + 18-200mm VR @ $1225
3. Canon XTi + 28-135 IS @ $930
Out of Price Range But Will Find A Way If Extra $$ Is Justified:
4. Canon 40D + 28-135 IS @ $1445
5. Nikon D200 + 18-135mm @ $1665
Any advice? Any general advice whether to opt for better glass over body? Am I going to see that much image quality improvement with 40Ds and D200s for what I am doing? or features/speeds that benefit other work as opposed to mine? Also, what do you guys think of Ken Rockwell's writing? |
Canon 40D and 28-135, sell the 28-135 (worth $25--300 used). It's a nice lens IMO (came with my 40D kit) but it is NOT in a way shape or form useable for weddings. You 2.8 or faster for weddings.
I've seen the images from a wedding with a D80 and the 18-135 - again, that is NOT a wedding lens. Bad flare, distortion and just too damned slow.
I know you have a budget, but it costs what it costs. "I want a good car for under $500". You can get a car for under $500, and you can get a good car, but but not a good car under $500.
You can buy a 30D used for $750-800. That leaves you enough for a tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 lens - both acceptable for weddings. And while I am not a big fan of the 50 1.8, you can afford that too (as backup, for some shallow DOF shots, to try out primes)
|
|
|
|
12/31/2007 09:00:49 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by rsvirani:
Youre not saving me the headache, youre telling me to not bother because im not starting out with $20 grand and 15 years experience. I asked for advice on cameras. If you want to just ping pong personal attacks and flex your photog muscles then start a new thread. Quit being insulted that others practice your main profession as a hobby and supplemental income, and realize that no one begins anything as a master. |
I am not being insulting. You asked for advice on gear for shooting weddings. I shoot weddings for a living. I know what you need. You may not like my advice, but you if follow it you will have a much easier time and more successful start shooting weddings and starting your business.
If you don't want to listen to the advice from working, successful, full time wedding photographers, then why did you ask for advice in the first place?
Message edited by author 2007-12-31 09:10:01.
|
|
