PDA

View Full Version : Where's the Wedding togs?



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

rthomas
02-10-2009, 09:28 PM
When someone asks me to photograph their wedding, I suggest they get two or three friends with cameras to do the ceremony, and a bunch of one-use film cameras and put them on all the tables at the reception (because if the ask me, they are too cheap to pay a pro.) And if they are good enough friends, I offer to take one image with the 8x10.

I like this idea, thank you! I think that will be my response from now on. I've done weddings (using d******) for a few friends from time to time, but next time I will suggest your idea, and offer to shoot a roll or two of portraits with the RB67.

2F/2F
02-10-2009, 09:33 PM
Most wedding photographers aren't into giving up the files or negatives without getting something out of it, because it means no print sales.

They prefer a buyout, because they get paid well enough for their time, and this way they don't have to deal with any of the printing.

Riccis
02-10-2009, 09:41 PM
[QUOTE=analogsnob;751107]

This thread should be OT about the wherefores of using film to shoot weddings. I'd like to hear more from Riccis.

What would you like to know? Ask away...

Steve Smith
02-11-2009, 02:02 AM
I don't think it really helps to compare, because the markets will be different as well.


I don't think it's a film vs. digital thing. I just don't see why anyone would want 1000+ images from their wedding regardless of the medium used. 100 would be plenty.

It just seems that because the digital shooters can shoot a lot more, they do and therefore it is now expected, making more unnecessary work for everyone.



Steve.

markbarendt
02-11-2009, 03:50 AM
what is the point of shooting film when the client wants a web gallery and electronic files?

None.

This becomes a business plan and marketing question session; "is that what I want to be known for?" and "can I really afford to do all the marketing and pay all the bills if that is what I sell?"

For me the answers are no and no.

I fully expect video and "Aunt Linda" to completely take over that market eventually.

markbarendt
02-11-2009, 04:18 AM
Most wedding photographers aren't into giving up the files or negatives without getting something out of it, because it means no print sales.

You are right.

I do think the pricing models are changing to accommodate the idea of giving away the negs though.

Getting paid properly upfront for shooting is one way to take after-the-fact print profits out of the calculation.

Timing is another, delivering the negs after say, a year. If I haven't made the print sales in a few months I'm probably done chasing that client, deliver the negs on "their" first anniversary and ask for referrals instead.

A third option is being a great printer. If your printing can stand on it's own as a salable product you become very hard to replace regardless of who has the negative.

djorourke
02-11-2009, 06:21 AM
I don't think it's a film vs. digital thing. I just don't see why anyone would want 1000+ images from their wedding regardless of the medium used. 100 would be plenty.

It just seems that because the digital shooters can shoot a lot more, they do and therefore it is now expected, making more unnecessary work for everyone.



Steve.

One of the reasons 1000+ shots comes in handy is for slideshows. We produce slideshows on the web and DVD for our clients. We typically don't aim to do a hokey slideshow of 1 image/2 seconds. Instead, we lay the slides to the music, often running through more than one a second to provide a feel of action and movement.

So while our B&G's won't need or buy 1000 prints. They enjoy what can be done for slideshows.

Here's an engagement slideshow I did last year with a couple when I was shooting nearly 100% digital:

http://www.djophotography.com/Jessica_and_Devan/

dwdmguy
02-11-2009, 06:33 AM
I think wedding photographers, just for fun and to see what happens, should try this. Instead of placing disposable cameras on the table as some brides do, carry a couple of Holgas in their pocket as well as the second shooter to see what they come up with. Who knows, can't hurt.

I have several friends in that business and once in a while I used to second shoot for them, some years ago, it's a shame what is happening. Most say it's the increased flood into the market place with new photographers offering $500 shoots on craigslist etc., that is killing them. But interesting, the top 5 percent of the famous wedding photographers are doing their best business right now, almost like their clients are proving the seperation of the Classes between richer and poorer.
Anyway, digital or film, I don't like to see anyone hurting.

markbarendt
02-11-2009, 06:43 AM
We typically don't aim to do a hokey slideshow of 1 image/2 seconds.

No offense here, your slide show is fun, but your statement is a good example of why I think video will replace much of what has been still's territory.

Slow slide shows are considered "hokey" today and the technology to replace them is in my wife's D90.

I imagine that in a few years it will be hard to find a self respecting soccer mom without video capability. If mom can do a high quality movie clip it raises the bar for digital shooters who are making slide shows.

Throw in the "Red" cameras at 10mp per frame and video is poised to put digital stills at weddings out of business.

markbarendt
02-11-2009, 07:11 AM
interesting, the top 5 percent of the famous wedding photographers are doing their best business right now.

I would bet it has a lot to do with their marketing and business skills.

The shooters of $500 shoot and burn jobs aren't the problem either in my mind, the $500 buyers are, that's all they are willing to spend because that's all they have or that's all it's worth to them.

$500 for 3-4 hours shooting and no processing is a reasonable day rate for a new shooter actually. $125/hr.

jgcull
02-11-2009, 08:13 AM
>>Riccis Valladares<<

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed seeing the work. Beautiful!

Tim Gray
02-11-2009, 09:03 AM
No offense here, your slide show is fun, but your statement is a good example of why I think video will replace much of what has been still's territory.



I partially agree with you. On the other hand, who actually ever watches the wedding video? In one year's time, all that will be looked at is a photo or two that is on display. The album might get dug out in the future to show the kids or reminisce, but I doubt the video will be ever really watched again. At least that's how I feel about it.

Riccis
02-11-2009, 09:12 AM
Dan - Thanks for sharing your engagement slideshow. I'll respectfully disagree with you on your statement that 1000+ shots come handy for a slideshow since all that is needed are strong images with deep emotional impact. I deliver anywhere from 137-250 total images for the average 6-8 hour wedding day.

Mark - I honestly don't think moving images will replace stills. IMHO, the are completely different mediums that can complement nicely when done well but one does not replace another... Just imagine the workflow nightmare of trying to pull a 1/125s exposure out of something shot at 24-30 fps... This is something that you will never see me doing. Also, the day that a professional photographer has to worry about soccer moms competing with him/her just because they have top of the line equipment is the day that such studio should retire.

jgcull - Thanks for your kind comments about my work.

Cheers,

Steve Smith
02-11-2009, 09:22 AM
On the other hand, who actually ever watches the wedding video? In one year's time, all that will be looked at is a photo or two that is on display. The album might get dug out in the future to show the kids or reminisce, but I doubt the video will be ever really watched again. At least that's how I feel about it.


I agree. I think I recorded over our video within a year of getting married (I hope my wife doesn't read this!).

I have been to a couple of weddings where the video of the service was played at the reception. Just about everyone at the reception was at the service so I didn't see the point. I don't think I would have watched it even if I wasn't at the service.




Steve.

JBrunner
02-11-2009, 09:31 AM
I think the shoot and burn togs and their clients can be left out of the equasion. Riccis, do you market your shooting as being on film, or do you just market the result?

Riccis
02-11-2009, 10:21 AM
Riccis, do you market your shooting as being on film, or do you just market the result?

I market my style and the results that come from it but the clients that know film (art directors, folks from the creative and entertainment industry, etc...) specifically seek out film shooters.

Cheers,

Cheryl Jacobs
02-11-2009, 10:35 AM
I shoot very few weddings, but the ones I have shot have been almost entirely B&W film, and almost entirely available light. The clients came to me specifically because I'm a film shooter. I turn down weddings all the time just because they're more stress than I like to inflict upon myself.

JBrunner
02-11-2009, 01:22 PM
Throw in the "Red" cameras at 10mp per frame and video is poised to put digital stills at weddings out of business.

You bet. I shoot the Red. Would you like a price quote? It will likely be more than the entire budget for most weddings, let alone the post.

markbarendt
02-11-2009, 08:49 PM
You bet. I shoot the Red. Would you like a price quote? It will likely be more than the entire budget for most weddings, let alone the post.

Jason, you are absolutely right today. What I'm saying is that in the next two or three digital product cycles (4-8 years?) we could see affordable high quality video that could make digital still cameras redundant.

markbarendt
02-11-2009, 09:02 PM
Mark - I honestly don't think moving images will replace stills. IMHO, the are completely different mediums that can complement nicely when done well but one does not replace another... Just imagine the workflow nightmare of trying to pull a 1/125s exposure out of something shot at 24-30 fps... This is something that you will never see me doing.

Riccis, I'm not saying I'd do it either but at the shoot & Burn end of the market where 1020x768 pixels is big enough video could take the whole market. The video shooters are already doing all the work except yanking a single frame for a portrait and polishing it a bit.


Also, the day that a professional photographer has to worry about soccer moms competing with him/her just because they have top of the line equipment is the day that such studio should retire.

Amen.