In the deep end (a photography challenge)
Discussion
I've been pondering this for a while, and now I seek the advice of the knowledgeable photographers on here.
Straight to the point: I have been challenged to do the photographs at a family wedding next summer. It will be a small event. Am I mad to attempt this? Should I turn it down?
1) I've never done anything like this before.
2) The threads on here about wedding photography say quite emphatically 'don't do it'. But the couple just don't have the budget for a pro. I did consider hiring a pro myself on their behalf as a gift, but I wouldn't learn anything and I wouldn't have any kit. But an SLR, two lenses and necessary accessories will approach the same budget. But what a great excuse to buy a new camera...
3) My trusty Fuji bridge camera is not up to the job. I only keep using because it takes AA batteries, and has a very flexible lens (18-300 it claims). Do I go straight for a DSLR with a couple of lenses (research suggests 70-200 and something like a 50mm?) I'm expecting to need plenty of batteries and memory cards - an estimate would be useful, as there is a difference between buying two spares and ten, eight of which I'd not use much again. I'll need to purchase soon so I can get practicing. I'd also consider hiring a second identical body for the day if need be.
4) I'm really quite rubbish behind the camera - very much a beginner, although the couple seem to be happy with what I've achieved before (still-life and motorsport, I almost never take portraits), I just know there is an enormous gulf between my expectations, their expectations and likely outcome. But I have [some] time and enthusiasm to learn. I'd welcome suggestions for best places to learn/books to read to support practice? I've seen the best forum thread and will have a look through that.
5) I will lose the whole day working and not taking part in the event.
6) I've never done anything like this before.
So, am I mad to be thinking of doing this? Or should I really back down and just find a way to get someone who knows what they're doing?
Over to you.
Straight to the point: I have been challenged to do the photographs at a family wedding next summer. It will be a small event. Am I mad to attempt this? Should I turn it down?
1) I've never done anything like this before.
2) The threads on here about wedding photography say quite emphatically 'don't do it'. But the couple just don't have the budget for a pro. I did consider hiring a pro myself on their behalf as a gift, but I wouldn't learn anything and I wouldn't have any kit. But an SLR, two lenses and necessary accessories will approach the same budget. But what a great excuse to buy a new camera...
3) My trusty Fuji bridge camera is not up to the job. I only keep using because it takes AA batteries, and has a very flexible lens (18-300 it claims). Do I go straight for a DSLR with a couple of lenses (research suggests 70-200 and something like a 50mm?) I'm expecting to need plenty of batteries and memory cards - an estimate would be useful, as there is a difference between buying two spares and ten, eight of which I'd not use much again. I'll need to purchase soon so I can get practicing. I'd also consider hiring a second identical body for the day if need be.
4) I'm really quite rubbish behind the camera - very much a beginner, although the couple seem to be happy with what I've achieved before (still-life and motorsport, I almost never take portraits), I just know there is an enormous gulf between my expectations, their expectations and likely outcome. But I have [some] time and enthusiasm to learn. I'd welcome suggestions for best places to learn/books to read to support practice? I've seen the best forum thread and will have a look through that.
5) I will lose the whole day working and not taking part in the event.
6) I've never done anything like this before.
So, am I mad to be thinking of doing this? Or should I really back down and just find a way to get someone who knows what they're doing?
Over to you.
You're mad. I've done a lot of photography over the last 3 years and spent a small fortune on kit (FF body, L lenses etc) but I wouldn't go near this with a barge pole. 
Speaking as someone who has done it - it is not as bad as you think, it is far, far worse. Doubly so where family are involved.
Find a pro who'll make up some nice gift vouchers and get the "happy couple" to stick them on their wedding list. They'll get the photos they want, the guests will appreciate being able to buy something worthwhile and you won't end up broke and broken!
Find a pro who'll make up some nice gift vouchers and get the "happy couple" to stick them on their wedding list. They'll get the photos they want, the guests will appreciate being able to buy something worthwhile and you won't end up broke and broken!
My Dad once did wedding photography for a living. He gave the good advice that wedding photography isn't about photography, it's about crowd control.
You can have all the best kit in the world and be a fantastic photographer but if the people you are photographing aren't being cooperative and you don't know how to get them round to your way of thinking, you'll have nothing.
They aren't there to be in your photos. They're there to enjoy the day in the company of friends, family and more importantly, the couple. You are just an inconvenience, getting in-between them and the bar. You will also lose any enjoyment you may have otherwise had in the day, turning it into a likely stressful nightmare.
Do it if you relish the challenge of organising potentially 100+ people whilst using every ounce of skill you have to take photographs and can take on the potential onslaught from the couple, family and friends if your pictures don't turn out quite as you, or the couple imagined.
If that doesn't sound appealing, don't do it.
You can have all the best kit in the world and be a fantastic photographer but if the people you are photographing aren't being cooperative and you don't know how to get them round to your way of thinking, you'll have nothing.
They aren't there to be in your photos. They're there to enjoy the day in the company of friends, family and more importantly, the couple. You are just an inconvenience, getting in-between them and the bar. You will also lose any enjoyment you may have otherwise had in the day, turning it into a likely stressful nightmare.
Do it if you relish the challenge of organising potentially 100+ people whilst using every ounce of skill you have to take photographs and can take on the potential onslaught from the couple, family and friends if your pictures don't turn out quite as you, or the couple imagined.
If that doesn't sound appealing, don't do it.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Thursday 11th April 15:38
MysteryLemon said:
My Dad once did wedding photography for a living. He gave the good advice that wedding photography isn't about photography, it's about crowd control.
Herding cats springs to mind!I've done a couple for close friends, but made it clear as I was doing it as favour I would only do the ceremony, so I could enjoy the reception as a guest. I add both of these weren't traditional weddings, but civil partnerships so perhaps a bit easier?
Thanks, you make an interesting point. Fortunately for me there will be at most 35-40 people, I think herding 100+ must be quite difficult. I'm also considering dishing out disposable point-n-shoots early in the day for others to play with, it worked out quite well at my sister's wedding.
Okay... i've done two of these, but on the strict understanding that it was 'reportage'. If you are not COMPLETELY confident in your photography skills, then say the same and get them to get a pro in to do the formal shots.
Then you get to help them out, but don't have the pressure.
Both of mine went well as I got lots of shots they loved that the wedding pro missed.
Then you get to help them out, but don't have the pressure.
Both of mine went well as I got lots of shots they loved that the wedding pro missed.
OK, everyone has to do their first wedding. But the time to take the plunge is when;
- you have proper mastery of all your photographic equipment;
- you are confident that you can handle all the difficult lighting challenges;
- you have back-up kit and preferably a "second-shooter";
- you know exactly what the couple's requirements/expectations are;
- you understand that they will want to look back at the images with pleasure, for the rest of their lives.
I appreciate that sometimes a couple will want to save money and may feel that photography is an area they can risk. How would you feel if they asked you to do the catering or make the bride's dress! Unless you were confident in these areas, you'd probably decline. That (I suggest), is what you do here.
- you have proper mastery of all your photographic equipment;
- you are confident that you can handle all the difficult lighting challenges;
- you have back-up kit and preferably a "second-shooter";
- you know exactly what the couple's requirements/expectations are;
- you understand that they will want to look back at the images with pleasure, for the rest of their lives.
I appreciate that sometimes a couple will want to save money and may feel that photography is an area they can risk. How would you feel if they asked you to do the catering or make the bride's dress! Unless you were confident in these areas, you'd probably decline. That (I suggest), is what you do here.
GetCarter said:
Okay... i've done two of these, but on the strict understanding that it was 'reportage'. If you are not COMPLETELY confident in your photography skills, then say the same and get them to get a pro in to do the formal shots.
Then you get to help them out, but don't have the pressure.
Both of mine went well as I got lots of shots they loved that the wedding pro missed.
I did similar for a mate, pro did all of the church stuff and 3 of us took pictures during the night of people having fun.Then you get to help them out, but don't have the pressure.
Both of mine went well as I got lots of shots they loved that the wedding pro missed.
Still slightly stressful but I'd have worried myself to death about doing the big bit. The end result was a happy mate, he's got all of the usual wedding photos and lots of fun ones with his friends and family in them having a laugh. It also turns out that I take some really good pictures (mostly really not good) while very drunk indeed!
MysteryLemon said:
My Dad once did wedding photography for a living. He gave the good advice that wedding photography isn't about photography, it's about crowd control.
You can have all the best kit in the world and be a fantastic photographer but if the people you are photographing aren't being cooperative and you don't know how to get them round to your way of thinking, you'll have nothing.
This is so true. I was talked into shooting my nieces wedding on the basis that it was going to be a very small affair at the local registry office with only close family and selected friends present. There was probably less than 20 people there and I'm happy to say that I did a decent job however had my mother not bossed everyone about and got them organised then I think it would have been a different story.You can have all the best kit in the world and be a fantastic photographer but if the people you are photographing aren't being cooperative and you don't know how to get them round to your way of thinking, you'll have nothing.
There is a standing family joke now that if my mother and I were to go into business as wedding photographers we'd make a fortune. I'm not tempted.
Thank you all for the excellent advice. I have thought long and hard about this.
I have spoken to the person requesting my services - and made my position clear. They emphasised that if I don't do the photos, there will be no photos! The wedding is very small - in fact there is no budget for a photographer. So essentially I will be in the deep end as much as I'd rather not be.
The good news is I will have plenty of access to both couple and venue well before the event, so I should be able to overcome some problems in advance, and I have someone who can help with crowd control.
So, now for the camera - can anyone recommend one? Should I go for an DSLR? Or something like the Panasonic FZ200? For DSLR I'm leaning towards Canon based on previous experiences, although I'm open to Nikon/Sony etc as I don't have any lenses yet. Budget will be circa £500 for body. Are kit lenses best avoided (e.g. the 18-55)? Is there a better option? Bear in mind once done, I will be aiming to go back to motorsport and automotive photography, with some landscapes thrown in.
Thanks again.
I have spoken to the person requesting my services - and made my position clear. They emphasised that if I don't do the photos, there will be no photos! The wedding is very small - in fact there is no budget for a photographer. So essentially I will be in the deep end as much as I'd rather not be.
The good news is I will have plenty of access to both couple and venue well before the event, so I should be able to overcome some problems in advance, and I have someone who can help with crowd control.
So, now for the camera - can anyone recommend one? Should I go for an DSLR? Or something like the Panasonic FZ200? For DSLR I'm leaning towards Canon based on previous experiences, although I'm open to Nikon/Sony etc as I don't have any lenses yet. Budget will be circa £500 for body. Are kit lenses best avoided (e.g. the 18-55)? Is there a better option? Bear in mind once done, I will be aiming to go back to motorsport and automotive photography, with some landscapes thrown in.
Thanks again.
RenesisEvo said:
So, now for the camera - can anyone recommend one? Should I go for an DSLR?.
I can't watch!Seriously, good luck. A DSLR will be best (by a long, long, long way) and preferably at least 100 hours using it to get to grips. Not sure when you are going to be roasted, but I suggest you buy now and get some time in!
I'm sure you'll be fine. [/gulp]
Top Tip, make sure you auto exposure bracket, and learn about depth of field, and how to use shutter priority.
Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 14th April 14:44
I'm with GC on this.
I'm quite experienced with cameras, both film and digital, and own a lot of high end gear.
I still found the first wedding I shot nerve wracking.
The second I shot I was at ISO6400 and F2 in the chapel and was still only getting 1/30th. I had at least two of everything, was shooting to two cards per camera in case one corrupted, had a backup solution in place etc.
I really wouldn't recommend trying to learn how to use a dSLR in such a short time frame before a big occasion like a wedding.
Regardless of what the B&G say now, they will be expecting professional grade results. All the wedding mags they read, the wedding fairs they attend etc, they're getting bombarded with top quality wedding photography, and that is what they'll expect. They'll not understand that the inside of the church is as dark as the black hole of calcutta, or that you forgot to change from f4 so none of the group shots are fully sharp, nor that your card corrupted, they'll just be upset that nothing looks like what they were expecting, or that there isn't a sharp one of Aunty Joan, or that the wedding dress changes colour depending on whether the photo was taken inside or at the reception.
Essentially between now and then you're setting yourself the challenge of learning:
I promise I'm not trying to piss on your chips, just trying to point out the pitfalls of what you're approaching.
I'm quite experienced with cameras, both film and digital, and own a lot of high end gear.
I still found the first wedding I shot nerve wracking.
The second I shot I was at ISO6400 and F2 in the chapel and was still only getting 1/30th. I had at least two of everything, was shooting to two cards per camera in case one corrupted, had a backup solution in place etc.
I really wouldn't recommend trying to learn how to use a dSLR in such a short time frame before a big occasion like a wedding.
Regardless of what the B&G say now, they will be expecting professional grade results. All the wedding mags they read, the wedding fairs they attend etc, they're getting bombarded with top quality wedding photography, and that is what they'll expect. They'll not understand that the inside of the church is as dark as the black hole of calcutta, or that you forgot to change from f4 so none of the group shots are fully sharp, nor that your card corrupted, they'll just be upset that nothing looks like what they were expecting, or that there isn't a sharp one of Aunty Joan, or that the wedding dress changes colour depending on whether the photo was taken inside or at the reception.
Essentially between now and then you're setting yourself the challenge of learning:
- The basic operation of the camera
- The limitations of your kit, how high an ISO can you get away with? Which focus points are reliable, which aren't (an issue on lower end kit), how many shots will it take before the buffer fills up (for the confetti shot), how long a battery lasts and how many you need, how many shots per card, how many cards you need
- How to change focus point quickly so that what you want is the right bit in focus
- How to correct white balance
- How to use flash correctly (you aren't going to rely on the on-board flash are you?), balancing flash and ambient, bouncing etc.
- Exposure basics, the bride's white dress will look awful if it is blown out, all the detail the seamstress spent hours adding on will disappear if you blow the highlights. At the same time the groom might be in a black suit.
- Compositions, they'll no doubt tell you they just want a candid reportage style, yet in reality they'll still want traditional formal groups
- Post processing, an entire subject in itself, raw conversion, sharpening, noise reduction, white balance
- Man management corralling the guests into the shots you need
- Presentation, prints? Albums? CD?
I promise I'm not trying to piss on your chips, just trying to point out the pitfalls of what you're approaching.
I still think you're mad but if you want a Canon DSLR a 600D is probably about right.
What about lens budget though - that's probably a bigger issue than the body. Rental may be a good option for you as buying lenses good enough to make a decent job of this could be very very expensive (ie thousands).
What about lens budget though - that's probably a bigger issue than the body. Rental may be a good option for you as buying lenses good enough to make a decent job of this could be very very expensive (ie thousands).
RenesisEvo said:
Thank you all for the excellent advice. I have thought long and hard about this.
I have spoken to the person requesting my services - and made my position clear. They emphasised that if I don't do the photos, there will be no photos! The wedding is very small - in fact there is no budget for a photographer. So essentially I will be in the deep end as much as I'd rather not be.
Another way of viewing it is that you have nothing to lose. You know you are not confident with a camera, and do not have the kit required, and have told them both these things, but they are still quite happy if not insistent for you to do it. Therefore I would say 'do your best' and if they don't like the results, offer them a full refund. The old saying is 'you get what you pay for' and so if they pay £0 and get even one decent photo, then they are ahead. Indeed, you are also prepared to fork out Ks on new kit to do this free job for them.I have spoken to the person requesting my services - and made my position clear. They emphasised that if I don't do the photos, there will be no photos! The wedding is very small - in fact there is no budget for a photographer. So essentially I will be in the deep end as much as I'd rather not be.
You can also take the view that if they have no money for a tog, then they are not very interested in photos. So I'd say relax, do your best, and if they don't like it or it all goes the way of the pear, tough - they took the gamble.
There are also certain to be other people with cameras there, of varying shapes and sizes (both people and cameras!), so even if yours goes bang in a shower of bits they will still get photos.
RenesisEvo said:
Thank you all for the excellent advice. I have thought long and hard about this.
I have spoken to the person requesting my services - and made my position clear. They emphasised that if I don't do the photos, there will be no photos! The wedding is very small - in fact there is no budget for a photographer. So essentially I will be in the deep end as much as I'd rather not be.
The good news is I will have plenty of access to both couple and venue well before the event, so I should be able to overcome some problems in advance, and I have someone who can help with crowd control.
I have spoken to the person requesting my services - and made my position clear. They emphasised that if I don't do the photos, there will be no photos! The wedding is very small - in fact there is no budget for a photographer. So essentially I will be in the deep end as much as I'd rather not be.
The good news is I will have plenty of access to both couple and venue well before the event, so I should be able to overcome some problems in advance, and I have someone who can help with crowd control.
You not taking the pictures will not mean they have no pictures. Everyone there will have their phone or compact (and likely a few DSLRs too) with them so they will end up with far more than they realise. The quality of those pictures may be questionable but they will have pictures.
Getting you to be their photographers means they will be expecting you take take the best pictures and get all of the shots they want. No doubt they will have scoured photographers websites to see prices and will have seen portfolios etc. That is what they will be expecting no matter how much you try to explain that you are not a pro.
Why not take the angle with them that you will bring your camera along with you and will take photos of the day as a guest. You will likely end up with a very nice set of journalistic pictures that they will like. They will still do group photos as other guests will want to have pictures of people together.
As for camera. Get a DSLR. It will be a better investment in the long run and more suited to the job. Look at getting a twin lens kit. Something with a wide angle and something with a long zoom.
At the weddings I attended over last year as a guest, most of my best pictures were taken from a good 10-15 meters away as the real photographer set up groups. They were really nice, natural portraits with everyone having a laugh and a good time. Most of the Pros pictures had everyone with false smiles or looking bored as they fired of 20 frames off the same shot.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Sunday 14th April 15:47
Given that choice then I'm afraid I would be saying it looks like you will not be having any pictures then !
Having said that ..... I did my Wifes Sisters Wedding at Christmas. I emphatically stated that I would not be doing stills but would shoot some video.
She arranged for some Photography Students from the local University to take the pictures. Cost her £60 and it was a disaster. They were shooting with bridge cameras and an basic DSLR with a standard 17-55.
My 7 year old could have taken better pictures and I'm not exaggerating. When she received the album ( 6x4 ) the pictures had been printed out on a home printer. They actually cut the pictures with a pair of scissors to crop them ! Three quarters through the album the printer ran out of red ink !!
Luckily because I was under no pressure I took some stills and most turned out pretty well.
Shot throughout the day without using any flash.
Kit used :
Pentax K5 ( pretty good high ISO performance )
Tamron 70-200 F2.8
Tamron 17-55 F2.8
Pentax 50mm F1.7 Prime
The 70-200 was the star of the day for me. Without it and the ability to shoot at F2.8 in the Church I would have been struggling.
Having said that ..... I did my Wifes Sisters Wedding at Christmas. I emphatically stated that I would not be doing stills but would shoot some video.
She arranged for some Photography Students from the local University to take the pictures. Cost her £60 and it was a disaster. They were shooting with bridge cameras and an basic DSLR with a standard 17-55.
My 7 year old could have taken better pictures and I'm not exaggerating. When she received the album ( 6x4 ) the pictures had been printed out on a home printer. They actually cut the pictures with a pair of scissors to crop them ! Three quarters through the album the printer ran out of red ink !!
Luckily because I was under no pressure I took some stills and most turned out pretty well.
Shot throughout the day without using any flash.
Kit used :
Pentax K5 ( pretty good high ISO performance )
Tamron 70-200 F2.8
Tamron 17-55 F2.8
Pentax 50mm F1.7 Prime
The 70-200 was the star of the day for me. Without it and the ability to shoot at F2.8 in the Church I would have been struggling.
Edited by nick heppinstall on Sunday 14th April 16:37
I have done it once.
I was woken up on a saturday morning by a friend phoning with her opening line: 'You know you take really good photos... Are you free this afternoon?' Close friends of her family were renewing their vows and the photographer they'd booked pulled out the night before. If they'd asked me in advance I would have said no for all the reasons listed above, but given the timing and it only being ~30 guests I decided I could (probably) pull it off and would like the experience.
I did tell them I had never done a wedding, didn't have back up kit, couldn't guarantee results and the really good photos of mine were the best of many more that had been deleted.
That said I am comfortable with my kit and using Lightroom for editing (Canon 500D with 70-200mm f4L, 50mm f1.4, 17-50mm f2.8 and 420EXII Flash.)
Fortunatly it all went well
but for reference my main problems on the day were:
If you're in a church it may be even darker and you probably won't be allowed to use a flash during the service.
If you do go for it, get the camera as soon as possible, practice lots and familiarise yourself with an editing package.
If possible get a pro to cover the service, they are the pictures that need to be perfect.
Good Luck
I was woken up on a saturday morning by a friend phoning with her opening line: 'You know you take really good photos... Are you free this afternoon?' Close friends of her family were renewing their vows and the photographer they'd booked pulled out the night before. If they'd asked me in advance I would have said no for all the reasons listed above, but given the timing and it only being ~30 guests I decided I could (probably) pull it off and would like the experience.
I did tell them I had never done a wedding, didn't have back up kit, couldn't guarantee results and the really good photos of mine were the best of many more that had been deleted.
That said I am comfortable with my kit and using Lightroom for editing (Canon 500D with 70-200mm f4L, 50mm f1.4, 17-50mm f2.8 and 420EXII Flash.)
Fortunatly it all went well
but for reference my main problems on the day were:- Inside slightly dark but very strong hard light through windows. This gives hard shadows and blown highlights, strong contrast in light/shadow from one side of peoples face to the other and big white holes in the background when exposing for the room.
- Colour casts from the wooden floor and painted walls.
- Hard light outside, again making the white dress tricky to expose properly.
If you're in a church it may be even darker and you probably won't be allowed to use a flash during the service.
If you do go for it, get the camera as soon as possible, practice lots and familiarise yourself with an editing package.
If possible get a pro to cover the service, they are the pictures that need to be perfect.
Good Luck
A small update:
I managed to borrow a Canon EOS 550D with the stock 18-55 kit lens and a UV filter. Played with it for an hour, and really happy with what I could achieve versus my old bridge camera. Happy with the general layout and controls so Canon it is. Currently scouting for offers on the 600D (and eBay, missed a few kits), although I am amused that Amazon sell the twin lens kit at more than the cost of buying the 18-55 and then getting the 55-250 separately.
Speaking of which, is the 55-250 IS worth bothering with? I gather from above suggests that its the need for a low aperture at the long end that will be the limiting factor, and I could stretch to the 70-200 f4 L knowing how highly rated it is, and how much use I could get out of it. The only issue is I often shoot racing at Silverstone, where 300m upwards is recommended. Of course, I could just crop from the 200. Thoughts? (also am I correct in saying that with 1.6 crop factor on APS-C, that 70-200 is more like 112-360?)
Also I have been experimenting with RAW and post-processing, plenty to learn but enjoying it.
I managed to borrow a Canon EOS 550D with the stock 18-55 kit lens and a UV filter. Played with it for an hour, and really happy with what I could achieve versus my old bridge camera. Happy with the general layout and controls so Canon it is. Currently scouting for offers on the 600D (and eBay, missed a few kits), although I am amused that Amazon sell the twin lens kit at more than the cost of buying the 18-55 and then getting the 55-250 separately.
Speaking of which, is the 55-250 IS worth bothering with? I gather from above suggests that its the need for a low aperture at the long end that will be the limiting factor, and I could stretch to the 70-200 f4 L knowing how highly rated it is, and how much use I could get out of it. The only issue is I often shoot racing at Silverstone, where 300m upwards is recommended. Of course, I could just crop from the 200. Thoughts? (also am I correct in saying that with 1.6 crop factor on APS-C, that 70-200 is more like 112-360?)
Also I have been experimenting with RAW and post-processing, plenty to learn but enjoying it.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff