The results of my first wedding

[jacktorrance]

I dont' want to hi-jack another thread, and apologies if this is bad manners but...
I'm in the UK and currently have a career in the law. I'm doing ok, but my heart's not in it.

I started photography a few years back and love it as a hobby. I;ve started to think about photography as a career - especially weddings.

Anyone got any experience of starting off and any good tips they want to share?

Thanks in advance, I know you guys are great at giving advice!

Cheers, Rich

I didn't start out in photography either and, in fact, I still don't count it as my main occupation which is practicing architecture.

It's what I love though and, if you're lucky enough to be given commissions, can be financially rewarding too.

You're unlikely to get any paid work until you have a portfolio of images that someone will look at and consider paying for. You may already have this and if you'd like to provide a link it might be useful to receive feedback.

There are also ways to create your own opportunities - one of my first paid commissions was photographing food for some caterers that my wife was working with. I had seen that the photography on their website was shockingly awful and didn't do the food justice at all so I contacted them and offered my services. It was these photographs that earned me some event photography, corporate commissions and my first wedding.

There will be all kinds of suggestions for getting into wedding photography - a good piece of advice was given earlier in this thread which was to act as second photographer at a few weddings. Offer your services to family, friends and friends of friends. Cast your net as wide as you can in order to build a good portfolio. It may be that some of this early work has to be unpaid.

Bottom line, the portfolio is key to winning work.

 

[Rich-212]

Thanks @Jack. I have a few pics which I like, and some of which I have displayed in a local cafe. I'll post them on Flickr soon and post a link here!

Thanks once again!

 

[LucidX]

Hi Rich,

For most, photography is not as financially rewarding as practicing law. If you would like to get started in wedding photography, I would suggest trying to find work assisting / second shooting for an established wedding photographer. Once you are second shooting, you'll want to be sure that you have the right to use any images that you photograph in your online portfolio. You'll get experience, learn how the day works and get images to use to later generate interest. Plus you can determine if it is actually something you enjoy doing.

Since assisting / second shooting at weddings is weekend work and you won't have to deal with booking a client or processing the images / creating albums for the client (which are both very time-consuming) you'll be able to keep your primary job. The one thing I strongly advise against is offering to shoot a random person's wedding for free. It's bad for the industry as well as the photographer (if they want free photography, the caliber of the wedding is bound to be very low and thus unimpressive in a portfolio).

Another great way to learn a lot is to look for a photography conference nearby that offer 2 to 3 days of classes taught by working, successful photographers. The topics range from good business practices to marketing to technique. In the US there are the PDN PhotoPlus Expo (always in NY, I'll be attending) and the great ImagingUsa (different US city each year). In Europe, I know of Photokina which is next week in Germany. I'm sure there are others.

 

[jacktorrance]

The one thing I strongly advise against is offering to shoot a random person's wedding for free. It's bad for the industry as well as the photographer (if they want free photography, the caliber of the wedding is bound to be very low and thus unimpressive in a portfolio).

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this statement. Someone who cannot afford a wedding photographer will not necessarily get married in a dump. Additionally you're making the assumption that the bride and groom won't appear like a 'well to do' bride and groom and, therefore, won't be good enough subjects to furnish a portfolio. That's rubbish. I defy any decent photographer to not come away from any wedding with at least one image that is of portfolio quality. If they can't then they're not cut out for it.

Everything else you said is probably fair enough. Attending conferences to pay to get taught sounds dull and a waste of time and money - just get out with your camera and shoot. You'll soon know whether you would like to do it for a living or not.

 

[Rich-212]

Thanks @Jack and @Lucid. Really appreciate your input and honest opinions. I've added some pictures to Flickr - I think the following link should take you there, if not, just search for 'rtpalmi' under people.: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7941768@N06/

I'd really appreciate your C&C, all input is welcome.

Cheers once again.

 

[jacktorrance]

Thanks @Jack and @Lucid. Really appreciate your input and honest opinions. I've added some pictures to Flickr - I think the following link should take you there, if not, just search for 'rtpalmi' under people.: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7941768@N06/

I'd really appreciate your C&C, all input is welcome.

Cheers once again.

Rich,

After looking at your photostream there are four main observations that I would make:

- You mentioned potentially getting into wedding photography yet none of the images in your photostream have people as a main, or secondary subject. Taking photographs of buildings and other inanimate objects is a completely different art to capturing people. Time (and timing) being one of the biggest factors.

- There appears to be little to no PP work. Most commercial images are generally subject to some post production and you will need to learn these techniques as part of your developing skill set to get the most out of your images

- There's an issue generally with composition. Some of your images of buildings appear to be of the top two-thirds - that's acceptable when the image is picking up details of an ornate facade but in the case of your Battersea Power Station image it looks like a mistake that the ground it cut off.

- Finally - you're seeing interest in every-day objects - the bike is a particularly successful shot, well composed, but some others such as the scaffolding, are at danger of looking like snaps from a point-and-shoot camera. Do some reading about tilt-shift lenses - it'll teach you about the importance of verticality and straight lines in architectural photography:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-81//Focusing the tilt-shift lens-1_img_1.jpg

If you ilke you can add me as a contact on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97703031@N00/

I don't mind giving you some guidance as you progress.

 

[Pikemann Urge]

Most commercial images are generally subject to some post production and you will need to learn these techniques as part of your developing skill set to get the most out of your images

I disagree. Not in the sense that I think you are 'wrong' but in the sense that 'it depends on what and why you are shooting'.

The client may feel happy enough with a photojournalistic approach. Or they might feel happier with a commercial approach. Or something in between.

Apart from white-balance, cropping and maybe noise reduction, PP is a waste of my time for things like weddings (not that I do that for a living, but I have shot them). If the client wants the Kai Power Goo approach, they can pay me to take the photos and pay a compositor to apply the Photoshop Fog [TM]. Specialization works in photography just as it works in other professions.

The next wedding I do (next year) may in fact be 100% Kodak TMax. The client has yet to make a final decision.

 

[jacktorrance]

Apart from white-balance, cropping and maybe noise reduction PP is a waste of my time for things like weddings

But adjusting white-balance, cropping and applying noise reduction are all counted as PP. You've supported my statement, not disagreed with it.

 

[Phrasikleia]

The client may feel happy enough with a photojournalistic approach.

Very possibly, but what that means for wedding photography is a photojournalistic style, which nonetheless requires careful processing to achieve polished results: dodging, burning, retouching, etc.--all done skillfully and subtly enough so that the final images make a claim to being 'reportage' without any of the warts that go along with it.

Any client who would actually request out-of-camera images would do so to save money, not because they really want to see that big zit on their husband's chin in all of their wedding photos. I requested raw files from my wedding photographer because I didn't want to pay him to do something that I can do particularly well myself, but it was very hard to find a good photographer who was willing to give me that discount and just hand over the raw files.

Apart from white-balance, cropping and maybe noise reduction, PP is a waste of my time for things like weddings (not that I do that for a living, but I have shot them). If the client wants the Kai Power Goo approach, they can pay me to take the photos and pay a compositor to apply the Photoshop Fog [TM]. Specialization works in photography just as it works in other professions.

I think you may have a rather narrow definition of what post-processing is. It sounds as though, to you, it's anything that makes a photo 'look' processed, but that's only one side of the coin. Images that have received a whole lot of finessing in Photoshop can still give off an 'eye-witness' appearance. And since a portfolio containing photos presented 'warts-and-all' will have limited appeal to potential clients, most serious photographers release only polished images.

As for specialization, yes it exists, but also like other professions, it usually means outsourcing is going on. Except in very low-budget situations, photos are delivered to the client complete with processing--a processing specialist may have been involved, but regardless, the client does not receive unfinished images.

But adjusting white-balance, cropping and applying noise reduction are all counted as PP. You've supported my statement, not disagreed with it.

Yes.

 

[Rich-212]

Thanks again or your candid opinions.

I appreciate (and agree with) your comment that I need to take more pictures of people. I think it's a confidence thing - I'm not yet too comfortable in taking pictures of strangers, so I'll have to get better at that, and also engineer more situations (family get-togethers etc.) where I can practice.

I also don't do much PP - partly because I'm time pressured with work and so I'd rather spend any free time I have out with the camera, rather than in front of a screen, but also (and mainly) because I've only just got photoshop, so until now I've been limited to what I can do in IPhoto. I know it's something I need to improve on, so that's my next target.

Thanks also for your comments on my photostream. I've been looking into tilt/shift - but I think I'd like to spend time developing a 'documentary' style and so any money on lenses will be spend in that direction (I currently only have 18-55 kit & 50 1.8). I have thought about getting a wider angle lens so that I can capture more of a building, or up-close and personal group shots, but my feeling at the moment is to go for something with a bit more reach (up to 200?) so that I can get some 'people' shots, but without being too intrusive.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for your comments - it really is appreciated. Don't worry, I'm not about to jack in my job just yet, but it's helpful for me to know what I need to work on so that if I ever do have the confidence to go down this route, I'll have the necessary skills.

Thanks

R