getting into photography

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Sandra Laberge, Feb 20, 2006.

  1. I have always had a passion for photography. I am always the one asked to
    take picture at special event, I was asked to do a couple of wedding, and I
    was successfull, and I am thinking of bringing it to the next level.

    I want to eventualy get into wedding photo. I saw what SOME other people
    offer and I know I can do better. So My plan is to buy some new, up to date
    equipment (to replace my 35mm), and try to take on free contract, if match
    with a professional photographer (asked a photographer to tag along and give
    him my photo, just for the practice).

    I was planning on buying:
    Rebel XT
    Battery Grip
    2 X 2gb card
    Extra Battery
    Canon 550 Flash
    50 mm F 1.4 lens for portrait
    24-70mm L F2.8 lens for all purpuse.
    17-55 mm as a door knob.

    When confortable enough, I plan to buy the Canon 5D to replace the XT (which
    will become the backup)

    What do you think about my plan? Is this feasable? Will I need more
    equipment to start? Is my choice for start up equipment good enough? Is the
    24-70 mm L lens an overkill?
     
    Sandra Laberge, Feb 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sandra Laberge

    Stan Beck Guest

    I don't do wedding photography, but here are my opinions.

    1. I would start with th 20D instead of the rebel; Moving to the 5D will be
    nice, but it will cause you to change lenses, because of the full frame
    sensor;

    2. Always have a backup for your media - at least a second flash memory
    card.

    3. The 50 mm 1.4 is a good lens, but will be slightly on the short side for
    portraits with the rebel (or 30D), but will be too short for that use on the
    5D (because of the 1:1 lens factor, compared to the 1:1.6 facto on the other
    cameras). I would get it anyway, though,

    --
    Stan Beck
    From New Orleans to Brandon MS

    To reply, remove -101 from address.
    ***
     
    Stan Beck, Feb 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. It has nothing to do with hardware.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 20, 2006
    #3
  4. Sandra Laberge

    UC Guest

    You're insane.
     
    UC, Feb 20, 2006
    #4
  5. Sandra Laberge

    UC Guest

    You have no business ruining anyone's wedding, which is what you will
    do. Enough incompetents already are in this business. Stay out of it.
     
    UC, Feb 20, 2006
    #5
  6. Sandra Laberge

    Adam Jacobs Guest

    My feelings exactly. There's nothing wrong with your 35mm equipment
    (even though weddings are shot in MF). Kill films and have fun on family
    and friends. I would think very hard before charging people for your
    hobby.. Take a photography course.
    *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
    *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
     
    Adam Jacobs, Feb 20, 2006
    #6
  7. Sandra Laberge

    dadiOH Guest

    Much of wedding photography success has to do with people skills rather
    than photographic. Additionally, it requires business acumen. You
    would be best served by...

    1. Taking some university courses in business - accounting, marketing,
    advertising, etc.

    2. Honing people skills via courses such as those offered by Dale
    Carnegie.

    3. Taking some *professional* photography courses such as those offered
    by the Professional Photographer's of America. Attending their
    conventions is useful too.

    4. Working closely with a *professional* photographer for a year or so.

    Do those four things and I can almost guarantee your success. I have
    given the same advice to dozens - perhaps 100s - of aspiring
    photographers. None ever did them. None ever succeeded at photography.

    And forget buying 35mm equipment.

    --
    dadiOH
    ____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
     
    dadiOH, Feb 20, 2006
    #7
  8. 35mm weddings are for amateurs. Always have been.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Sandra Laberge

    Jay Guest

    Actually getting 1000s digital photos of wedding and share them with friends
    and family is muc more approperiate than having an arrogant expensive
    professional photographer who in order to charge you $1000s would constantly
    give bride and groom how to stand for a photo. Make friendly digital photos
    by a friend and have a simple wedding.
     
    Jay, Feb 21, 2006
    #9
  10. Oh yeah...just keep that button pressed down...you'll find something
    good in there. Doesn't matter that the lighting is bad or that the
    posing distorts the people. At least you got 'em cheap.

    The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
    is forgotten.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 21, 2006
    #10
  11. I understand that quality is an issue, but my goal is not to make money and
    charge right off the bat.

    I wanted to tag along with a professional photographer for at least 20
    wedding to get more an idea of what I am getting into, and 2 want to learn
    some of the tricks of the trade. I don't consider this taking advantage or
    ruining anyone's wedding.

    Remember, I did a couple of them for friend and they where very happy. They
    even recommended me to some of thier friend, but I refused. I did not want
    to get myself into ''contract'' without being more qualified and more
    ''equiped''. You might say that I have no right to offer this services even
    after I tagged along with the professional, get more knowledge and more
    equipment, but there is a demand for all the range in price and quality.
    That is why you have cars like Hyunday, Honda, Audi, Porsche, Ferrari etc.

    Personnally, I got married about 2 years ago. Very small wedding with a very
    small budget. We could not hire a pro, and the amateur...who still charged
    around 600 $ for 6 hours....was too amateur and the quality not was good
    enough, so we simply did not have any photographer. The only nice photo of
    our wedding we had was the one I set up using one of my aunt as a tripod and
    a remote click.

    It just pisses me off when I see a ''professional'' photographer, who
    charged 1500 and up for a wedding, shoot picture in landscape when the
    composition calls for portrait, leave an empty bottle of water next to the
    feet the of bride during the casual shots, shoot picture in SEPIA mode and
    at 1600 ISO (btw, I am a graphic designer, pro with photoshop and I know how
    to make a real SEPIA), focus on only one subject for a group of 2 or more,
    shoot everything in highly compresse mode and medium resolution to same
    space on his card, use pop up flash.....with the subject with his/her back
    on the wall....
     
    Sandra Laberge, Feb 21, 2006
    #11
  12. Sandra Laberge

    UC Guest

    You have obviously not seen pro work, then. $1500? That's not a pro
    price. Start at $2500.
     
    UC, Feb 21, 2006
    #12
  13. Sandra Laberge

    Colin D Guest

    Let's not get too hoity-toity about pricy pro vs. amateur here. Low
    quality is better than no quality. Some people buy sneakers at Walmart
    for $20, others buy Italian leather shoes at $250. Both are better than
    bare feet. Some people buy Volkswagens, others buy Lexus or BMW. Both
    are better than walking. It's called budgeting. No different for
    weddings. UC would have it that if you can't afford a 'pro' with MF
    gear and film at $2500 plus, then you shouldn't get your wedding
    photographed at all.

    Of course, if you can only afford to pay $500 or $600 for a photog, you
    can't expect $2500-style photographs, just as the Volkswagen owner
    wouldn't expect his car to perform like a Lexus. Then again, not
    everyone appreciates the rarified, over-managed, over-priced, sterile
    shots that many $2500 pros consider represents the wedding day. Often,
    the more journalistic, 'lower-quality' shots represent the day far
    better in the eyes of the celebrants than a handful of framed
    masterpieces of technical excellence that please the photog and no one
    else.

    There is no reason except intellectual snobbery to denigrate lesser
    photogs than your 'pros', and to imply that no shots are better than low
    quality shots is argumentative and specious.

    Colin D.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Feb 21, 2006
    #13
  14. Sandra Laberge

    UC Guest

    UC, Feb 21, 2006
    #14
  15. Sandra Laberge

    UC Guest

    UC, Feb 21, 2006
    #15
  16. Sandra Laberge

    Keith Guest

    Well keep looking. Hopefully someday it will kill you.


    "UC" wrote in message
     
    Keith, Feb 22, 2006
    #16
  17. Sandra Laberge

    Mike Alpha Guest

    And never, EVER forget to take a photo of aunty Betty on the bride's family
    side!

    Mike
     
    Mike Alpha, Feb 22, 2006
    #17
  18. at my cousins wedding, I got the same or better photos with my digital
    P&S than the pro did with his Canon DSLR.
    I have found that a single photog simply cant cover all the action in
    the room. Candid shots taken by guests were added to the official
    photos which were staged.
    The groom and bride aint models; no need to force them to pose.

    Also, I hate indoor lighting. Outdoors in the sun is the best way to
    have a wedding.
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Feb 22, 2006
    #18
  19. rdepuy had some nice wedding shots.
    whats your beef with him?
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Feb 22, 2006
    #19
  20. Sandra Laberge

    UC Guest

    Oh, complete incompetence for one thing...
     
    UC, Feb 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.