wedding photography

[backstageben]

I have done a quick search for info but would like more input on this.I'll give you my background witch might help or might not, I don't know, but it might give you an idea of where I was comming from.

I did wedding photos when I was in school back in the day (this was 10ish years ago so I was using film. it was long enough ago that my masters program in fine art/fasion foto only offered a digital class my last year, and that was just a class in Photoshop) I have played with digital ever since then but just with point and shoot then a little tweaking in photoshop. I no longer work in the Photo feild but that seems a shame to let all that education go to waste. Back then I used a Mamaya RB67 pro for prot. and a Canon Elan for candid (in the photo journal style) twards the end I gave up on med format, it just was too big a pain for not enough of a diff. I offered alot of technique that hobbiests and photo club people just couldn't or didn't. anything from open flash to B&W IR to hand coloring, and alot of tricks I picked up in school.

Having gotten that out of the way here is what I am looking for. A digital SLR rig to shoot weddings. I am going to do mainly digital but I am also going to do some film too. I have the film camera and am looking for the digital. I am open to all ideas but I was thinking of the Canon XT or when it comes out the Olimpus E-500. Aside from the camera is there a good printer out there or should I just farm out the prints out? I am guessing there is lots of stuff I am not thinking of but anything else you could suggest would be helpful. thanx in advance, Ben.

[JTL]

I have done a quick search for info but would like more input on this.I'll give you my background witch might help or might not, I don't know, but it might give you an idea of where I was comming from.

I did wedding photos when I was in school back in the day (this was 10ish years ago so I was using film. it was long enough ago that my masters program in fine art/fasion foto only offered a digital class my last year, and that was just a class in Photoshop) I have played with digital ever since then but just with point and shoot then a little tweaking in photoshop. I no longer work in the Photo feild but that seems a shame to let all that education go to waste. Back then I used a Mamaya RB67 pro for prot. and a Canon Elan for candid (in the photo journal style) twards the end I gave up on med format, it just was too big a pain for not enough of a diff. I offered alot of technique that hobbiests and photo club people just couldn't or didn't. anything from open flash to B&W IR to hand coloring, and alot of tricks I picked up in school.

Having gotten that out of the way here is what I am looking for. A digital SLR rig to shoot weddings. I am going to do mainly digital but I am also going to do some film too. I have the film camera and am looking for the digital. I am open to all ideas but I was thinking of the Canon XT or when it comes out the Olimpus E-500. Aside from the camera is there a good printer out there or should I just farm out the prints out? I am guessing there is lots of stuff I am not thinking of but anything else you could suggest would be helpful. thanx in advance, Ben.I don't shoot weddings, but my colleagues who do would pass this advice along to you: You never want to show up with equipment that may not be as good as the wedding guests may have.

So, even though the XT is a perfectly fine camera, it will clearly tell everyone that you are not really a professional with pro gear...I wouldn't show up with anything less than a 20D...and most pros that I know use a 1D. Now, I do know some pros who have a XT as their backup camera...

IMO, as a system, Olympus is not up to snuff for a pro shooting situation…especially one where portraits are key...for wedding photography you really should be using Canon primes (or Nikon and Nikkor primes)...not a single pro I know uses the Olympus system.

[eastbluffs]

I'm a rookie but can offer a hint or two.

Check out fredmiranda.com. They have a wedding photog forum with lots of pros posting there.

I attended a wedding 2 weeks ago where the photog got paid top $$ (about 12K I believe). Included 3 photogs + coordinator. They all had Canon 20D's with lots of Canon L lenses. Its a very respectable camera.

Wedding photog will require good portrait performance, but also great low light for receptions (or other night shots). Or indoor churches that don't allow flashes. The 20D has slightly better low light performance than the XT.

The newly released 5D has bigger pixels (but more of them) which means better high ISO performance (less noise). Its Full Framed. That's a big deal which hitherto costs 8K or more. This is more like $3K. If that's more your budget, it might be a good call.

Note: Full Frame is multi-edged. You get all you pay for on your lense (a 17mm behaves like 17mm) however the smaller format cameras (like the 20D) uses the lense's sweet spot. So lenses with problems near the edges will reveal their weaknesses. There are many forum discussions on this topic.

EDIT: As Jamison aptly pointed out, good enough is good enough if you can't afford more. The 20D for sure earns its additional $400 or so price tag over XT, but in image quality and essential features, the XT is no slouch. Also; extra money in a tight budget must be saved for a good lense or two and a very good flash. Also: not to sound like I know too much, I've got a long way to go on this stuff...

[jamison55]

The 20D is currently the most used wedding camera among working professionals. The trend of the day is PJ, and the 20D is perfect for that, with its combination of performance, (high ISO) image quality, and relatively compact size. If you can stretch your budget to include a 20D, you will have a great tool for the job.

Just remember, that the camera is only a tool. I can drive in a nail just as effectively with my $4.99 Wal-Mart hammer as I can with a $39.99 Eastwing...but if I can't hit a nail with the Wal Mart hammer, the Eastwing isn't going to give me any better of a swing!

My current wedding tally (in my 1 year as the "Pro") is 28. In those 28 weddings, I have never had a bride and groom comment on my camera, even when I was shooting with a silver Digital Rebel (300D). At my first wedding (shot with the DReb, 18-55 Kit, Sigma 55-200, and 50 f1.8), a guest standing next to the bride pointed over at my camera and said "the photographer has the same camera as me" (he was holding a DReb with a Tamron 28-75 mounted). Yeah, I was a little embarrassed, but same man booked me for his own wedding 8 months later. As a matter of fact, I have been out-gunned by guests at several weddings, but the couples still bought pictures from me and raved about my work. I actually struck up a conversation with one of the "guests with good gear" at one of my early weddings, and he offered to send me a CD of the shots he got. They were awful! I don't say all this to boast (lord knows, I'm but a young pup in the wedding game, with thousands of photographers producing better work than me)...just to illustrate the point, that the gear is really a very small part of the photographic equation. A good understanding of what makes a good picture, and the ability to capture it in an instant is far more important than the camera you carry. When you give the bride the images from her wedding day, she's not going to remember the camera you used to take them!

These pictures came from my DREb and the dreadful Sigma 55-200DC: http://sky.prohosting.com/jgwphoto/WPort1.htm

So now that the lecture part is over, buy and use what you can afford, and prove any scoffers wrong with the images you produce. My business model has always been to let the gear pay for itself. I never made an upgrade unless I at least had a contract and deposit (i.e.accounts receivable). The idea being, that if I failed as a wedding photog, I wouldn't be left with a lot of debt!

So if the XT is the best you can afford, shoot with that. I just picked one up this week to replace my 10D as a backup to my 20D. I shot 2 portrait sessions and a corporate event with it over the weekend, and the images were every bit as good those from my 20D. In fact, I shot my 2nd portrait session at ISO 1600, and am amazed at the low noise of the shots. Blows my "more professional" 10D out of the water.

Put the $500 you save over the 20D towards a nice flash (a 550ex or a 580ex), then invest in some nice glass. I recommend a 17-40L as a great (relatively) low cost starter. It produces great images and focuses quickly and accurately...even in dark rooms. Mine is on my 20D the entire wedding. Add a ($70) 50 f1.8 for portraits and low light and you have a nice starter kit, that's capable of producing stunning images.

For prints, don't bother at home. There are plenty of great pro labs out there that can do the job better and cheaper than you can. I use Adorama this year, but plan to switch to White House Color next year.

[Rhys]

I've seen some wedding phtographers doing pretty much what I do - uploading the photos to a website such as smugmug, passwording the wedding folder with the bride's surname and then letting smgmug take the strain. They do the printing, postage, handle payments and send you a cheque at the end of the month. So basically, you have a card you hand a flyer to the guests: "wedding photos will be available for purchase from www.mywebsite.com" and just hope that enough people order to make it worthwhile.

Of course, the downside to that angle is that people will look at the pictures online but won't order. Instead, they'll keep punching in the password and viewing. On the other hand, you can take it for granted that the couple will want photos and that the parents might want one or two but you might get sales to guests as well.

[backstageben]

Thanks for the advice everyone. Just to let everyone know I started using the E-500 and was soon to add an XT as a back up, but use two film cameras as well, one for BW and one for ports (an RB67 for the latter) it's cool that other photographers bag on my camera when they see it but I have the training and experance to back up what I do, and in the long run I could out shoot someone with the newest and best DSLR with my old AE1 programe when it comes to it. I might upgrade someday, but I do still use my AE1 and I have an old Rollie I take out to do cityscapes with so I think at this point it's not the camera but what the Photographer brings to the table that counts. So when I see old Uncle Artie show up with a D20 and 8 lenses I am not too worried.

[Vich]

Thanks for the advice everyone. Just to let everyone know I started using the E-500 and was soon to add an XT as a back up, but use two film cameras as well, one for BW and one for ports (an RB67 for the latter) it's cool that other photographers bag on my camera when they see it but I have the training and experance to back up what I do, and in the long run I could out shoot someone with the newest and best DSLR with my old AE1 programe when it comes to it. I might upgrade someday, but I do still use my AE1 and I have an old Rollie I take out to do cityscapes with so I think at this point it's not the camera but what the Photographer brings to the table that counts. So when I see old Uncle Artie show up with a D20 and 8 lenses I am not too worried.
You sound like a practiced photographer. Curious to hear how you find the E-500 as compared with the XT?

I would think it nicer to use but not as capable when the lighting is less than ideal. Not many choose to go across brand lines so much due to lens compatibilites.

[backstageben]

yeah, I know, I know, but since I figure it'll all be antiquated in three or four years anyway I am not so much worried about jumping around. The tech hasn't leveled off yet, so till it dose I'll jump around, but even with 35mm it depends on what I am doing. I used to shoot bands when they were playing so I would get some open flash and nothing beat this old Richo for that, but I liked Canon for almost everything else. Even then I got bagged on for it by Nikon and Pentax people. I figure I'll go with what works for me and tell those who feel they know better to bugger off. Photography has alwase been one part science and one part art, and it's the art most (lay)people see.