Recent Comments:
Photographers: Finding one that suits your needs {Aisledash}
Oct 15th 2007 1:45AM As a professional wedding photographer, I just wanted to put my two cents worth in here. It pains me greatly to see so-called professional photographers treat clients badly. It hurts the industry in many ways. I strive everyday to rise above that kind of business dealing. Brides, you must understand a few things about wedding photography. First, if remembering this most special day is important to you, then you must find someone who has many unique talents, not the least of which is being able to take gorgeous images. Great wedding photographers are VERY hard to find among the many amatuers and poseurs out there. This is a career that takes the following to do well: an in-depth knowledge of weddings and a lot of experience doing them - a very creative and inventive mindset, capable of shooting even in a dreary setting and yet making it look artistic - very high technical skills with the right equipment and lenses, and the know-how to use them - backup equipment - one who knows how to bounce and diffuse the flash and can properly shoot indoors - a true professional with the highest of ethics, someone who does what he says, has great referrals from past clients, who will be there no matter what or have another competent professional there in his place (if he is deathly ill) - someone with tremendous people skills, having the ability to work under extreme stress and pressure without losing it, who has a great and winning personality, who is fun and can bring out the best in people, and who won't make your wedding party want to strangle him / her - one who knows how to artistically arrange and pose groups of people, making them appear natural and relaxed, not stiff as a board or poorly arranged - a great sense of humor and the ability to keep things light - one who leaves his ego elsewhere, and makes the job all about YOU and your event - one who won't ever be rude or unprofessional - one who works quickly and keeps with the timetable of events. Finally, one who's pictures make you ooh and ahh.
Those of you who think your cousin or uncle with his shiny new Nikon can do all of that, hopefully can see that really great wedding photography takes a multitude of skills to do properly. You can skimp on the flowers a bit, you can back off on the food or decorations here or there, and you can make other adjustments if you're creative. You'll be less disappointed by those things than you will if you're left with poor wedding photos. The day is too important to leave to amatuers.
As for videographers: sure they're great if you have the budget, but it's hard for photographers and videographers to work without getting in each other's way. Most people will choose a great photographer over a videographer any day. Why? You can't print out high-quality photos from the video, you have to watch the thing on TV (not really a portable product), and doing proper wedding video takes at least two cameras (very expensive ones, not cheapies) sound equipment to capture the voices, and a heckuva lot of experience. And, I don't care what anyone says, any good photographer who captures your ceremony properly WILL get in the videographer's shot. It just can't be helped. I'm a professionally-trained videographer and know what I'm speaking about here.
Brides, examine your photographers closely. Read their contracts carefully. Ask lots of questions. Do take the time to get back with those you do NOT select and give them the courtesy of thanking them for their time. Even giving them feedback on your reasoning will help them do better in their own careers. And on the question of film vs. digital - if your photographer shoots film, they are less likely to give you the negatives or will want to sell them to you for a very high price (because they cannot be replicated without losing quality). Digital photographers can duplicate the work much more easily and are more likely to give you the high-res images on disc. I think this is important, and you should keep the disc backed up on a computer somewhere forever. Discs do go bad eventually. I use archival grade discs which last a very long time.
Finally, find a photographer who will give you ALL your digital images, with the understanding that you will keep the disc to yourself, and you will send all relatives and friends to the photographer for prints that they want. This saves your time, ensures that you will own your images, and the photographer makes money from print orders. A win-win for everyone!
I hope this helps!
More pics of Sony's new Alpha DSLRs surface {Engadget}
May 18th 2007 12:01PM Sorry, I was thinking of the 1D MkII N, which B&H has for about $3400. Heck, the 1DS MkII is 7 grand, though, if you wanted the creme de la creme. The Alpha is a $700 camera.
More pics of Sony's new Alpha DSLRs surface {Engadget}
May 18th 2007 10:19AM Well yeah, the Canon 5D is a sweet camera, and packs plenty of street cred, but my God, it's nearly $4000 for the body. Let's talk apples to apples here people!
The only Alpha available now is the current one. These new Alphas will be awesome, and will be more expensive (wish I knew how much), but my guess is it won't be anywhere nere $4K. Yeah, if money is no object, you can have what you want. But if you're a wedding shooter like me, and you'd rather carry $5k in equipment around instead of $10K (I banked the other 5K), then your best bang for the buck will be with something like the Sony. I assure you, your clients won't know the difference, full frame or not. I've NEVER had a client ask me what camera I shoot with, or anything technical about my equipment. My pics speak for themselves.
More pics of Sony's new Alpha DSLRs surface {Engadget}
May 17th 2007 6:01PM So Ryan, what do you like/love about your D200? Have you shot with an Alpha? Don't dis it til you've kissed it!
More pics of Sony's new Alpha DSLRs surface {Engadget}
May 17th 2007 5:23PM That's a good point, but I was already invested in lenses and Minolta 5D body (the Alpha predecessor) before the Pentax came out with the 10D. Otherwise, I might have leaned that way. The Sony was a good progression for me. And, thankfully, I haven't had to shoot much in the rain. But, the Pentax is sweet, no doubt.
More pics of Sony's new Alpha DSLRs surface {Engadget}
May 17th 2007 5:21PM I didn't say that IS made you shoot at faster speeds. You can just handhold a camera with a slower shutter speed in darker conditions than you can without it. This also allows you to use a lower ISO, so your pics aren't as grainy.
The advantage the Pentax and the Sony have over the "big dogs" is this built-in stabilization. Every lens you have, no matter how cheap, is stabilized. Like I said, you have to pay big bucks to get lenses that are stabilized from the other manufacturers.
More pics of Sony's new Alpha DSLRs surface {Engadget}
May 17th 2007 3:10PM Every time I look at my Sony Alpha, I smile that I didn't buy a Nikon or Canon. As a wedding photographer, the image stabilization built-in to the body makes every Minolta Maxxum-compatible lens I attach to it (and there are millions of them) stabilized, and I can literally handhold the camera in a dark church 2 stops darker than I could with a non-stabilized camera. With Nikon or Canon, I would have had to buy hideously expensive stabilized lenses to do the same thing. Now, I have no beef with Nikon and Canon cameras in any other area but that, and in fairness, they are all awesome these days. But, that stabilization gives me an edge, not only in speed (not having to switch to a stabilized lens), but in price (reducing the cost of my gear). This is the ONLY Sony camera I've ever been a fan of, and I generally don't buy anything else by Sony.
