(Closed) xx

posted 7 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 47
Member
33 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: August 2016

@CollegeBee3:  you should spend what your comfortable with spending, just make sure you know what your getting. The sample pics are very nice.

Post # 48
Member
4810 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: June 2014

View original reply
@CollegeBee3:  

View original reply
@sillygoat:  

Canon makes a 35 mm f 1.4  and a 35 mm f 2.0.  Interesting.  I’m guessing she has a Sigma lens.  I am not suggesting deception at all – most likely inexperience.  

The 7D is fairly noisy in low light.  It doesn’t have the image quality at higher ISO numbers that a Canon 1D body would.   That, for me, would be an insurmountable obstacle.  However, OP likes the style of these shots, so it works for her.  🙂  

 

Post # 49
Member
4810 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: June 2014

View original reply
@CollegeBee3:   The lenses have image stabilization, not the camera body.  Sorry to be picky – I don’t want these misconceptions to be contagious.  LOL!!!

Post # 50
Member
3080 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: July 2014

View original reply
@mrspizanotobe:  I agree. $1000 would be a steal here

Post # 52
Member
406 posts
Helper bee

She may be able to use the 7d up to 1600 at a push. That’s about the equivalent light of A very we’ll lit hotel room. At wedding ceremonies my ISO is normally easily double that. If she’s not able to use flash you’ll have grainy, perhaps somewhat motion blurry images. It’s not a camera I’d use but at 1000/wedding I’m sure it’s the best she can afford. Of course they won’t be the best quality images but you seem reasonable enough to know that low price is not going to get you perfect images. Something has to give someWhere. 

Post # 53
Member
1589 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: March 2014

In my area that’s perfect for what you’re getting. We’re paying 2k for 8 hours, which does include albums, but I had to search far and wide for this price.

Post # 55
Member
406 posts
Helper bee

View original reply
@CollegeBee3:  she has a flash by whether she can use it will depend on the ceremony/reception space. There are some where it’s unusable and some ceremonies where it’s not allowed or just not useful. I’ve only used flash once at over 100 ceremonies. It’s very annoying and often with the ceilings heights ineffective. I’d also find out if she knows how to use off camera flash. For the reception mostly. So you don’t end up looking like your reception is shot in a black hold haha. I’d definitely ask to see a lot of her low light work before you sign her. That’s usual where new photographers fall flat. Using a flash properly can make or break a wedding 

Post # 57
Member
38 posts
Newbee

$1000 seems crazy low to me, I haven’t been able to find anyone for less than $3000 and that does’t include much in the package. But if you’ve researched out reviews on her and are happy with the samples of work she’s shown you and the package you’re getting…then it’s a total steal – go for it!

Post # 59
Member
4810 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: June 2014

View original reply
@CollegeBee3:   The low light shots may be grainy and would make it difficult for you to enlarge them for prints.  Unless you like the grainy effect.  Anyway I suspect some detail will be lost.  From what I have seen of her work, you won’t get detail in the outdoor shots anyway – she doesn’t have much detail in her whites.  

Which means if you have a white or ivory dress with tons of detail, and want that to show in pictures, you will have to look for a location with open shade for the best chance of showing detail in the whites.  

If you work well with her, and like her style, that’s all good!  🙂

Post # 60
Member
7326 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

View original reply
@CollegeBee3:  Based on what I saw from her larger body of work, I’m going to say she’s not going to be able to handle a wedding reception in a low-light planetarium. As a wedding photographer you have to be skilled in handling any lighting situation.. WAY too often we hear newbies and even brides say things like “Well it’s only a small wedding” or “Well it’s outside so the lighting should be fine”. What happens if it rains and your ceremony is moved inside? Now you have a photographer who isn’t equipped, skill wise or with gear, to handle the low-light situation of shooting inside. It’s one thing to botch up reception pictures (which technically isn’t acceptable but you know what I mean), it’s another to botch up the ceremony shots.

Here’s the thing, if that is absolutely all you can spend and she is what you’ve found…there is no use agonizing over it and picking apart each detail of her work and if she’s going to get the job done. If she keeps at it, and keep practicing, she will most likely improve some by the time your wedding rolls around in 2015 – which is still a long way away. My main concerns would be more sustainability of her business. At $1,000 one of two things is going to happen – a) she’s going to burn out and realize that she can’t afford to run a business on that and she’s going to close up shop, or b) she’s going to burn out and realize that she can’t afford to run a business on that and she’s going to raise her prices and be irritated with herself and the situation that she booked someone that far out.

I don’t say any of these things to discourage you, but food for thought. You’ve got a long time until your wedding. There’s a good chance she’ll continue to shoot/grow/learn, and you’ll have a fantastic photographer for super cheap by the time your wedding rolls around!

The topic ‘xx’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors