# A Wedding, Film, and Photojournalism



## TickleMyElmo (Aug 13, 2009)

I figured I would share some recent work with you guys! For those that don't know, I'm a professional wedding photographer and I specialize in photojournalistic wedding coverage, meaning I like to tell the story of the day by capturing candid images, much like a photojournalist covers a news story. I shy away from posed, stuffy images and find photojournalism is what I love, and is a main reason why clients like my work. 

For this wedding, I used some state of the art film simulation software that simulates the look of specific brands and models of film, but its up to the photographer to make the individual adjustments and fine tune everything. For those that have been around long enough to recognize different films, Fuji 400H was used for the color images and Kodak T-MAX 3200 for the black and white images. 

These may end up being published in a few wedding magazines, one of which being a national publication and VERY prominent, so needless to say, I'm proud of my work, like I am of all my work (proud father moment, sorry )

The wedding was absolutely beautiful! Unfortunately, minutes into the ceremony it began to downpour horribly, as in buckets and buckets of rain. I got completely soaked within 30 seconds. No towel would have saved me. I was wearing my lenses in a belt system with pouches, which acted as buckets :eek5: My 501.4G fogged up heavily and was useless for half the day, and my 24-70 got fogged up and moisture ended up getting inside the lens. I still have water spots on the inside of the back element, I'll have to get it serviced soon (it does fine for now) Anyways, as a result of the rain, the ceremony got moved to the reception tent. While I would have loved to have shot the entire thing in the sunny awesometacularly beautiful area we were in originally, sometimes you just have to make do with what you have 

1.



2.



3.



4. Barn on the property from the 1800's, hand built with hand-made nails...



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13. 



14.



15.



16.



17.



18.



19.



20.



21.



22.


22a.



23.



24.



25.



26. Last shot of the day as I was leaving...


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

Overall not bad. 13, 14 and 15 bother me. In 13 and 14 the OOF people in the front are distracting to say the least. In 15 it appears like the woman is coming up the path and she is behind the blurred person yet his elbow appears to be behind her. Like you popped him in the picture PP.
Not fond of the film effect software at all.


Of course these are just my opinions. From one professional to another.

Do you get client permission to post their photos?


----------



## TickleMyElmo (Aug 13, 2009)

GraphicGr8s said:


> Overall not bad. 13, 14 and 15 bother me. In 13 and 14 the OOF people in the front are distracting to say the least. In 15 it appears like the woman is coming up the path and she is behind the blurred person yet his elbow appears to be behind her. Like you popped him in the picture PP.
> Not fond of the film effect software at all.
> 
> 
> ...


Eh, the style isn't for everyone :red_mouth And people either love the film thing or hate it 

And yes, it's all in the contract. Besides, they're plastered on my website and as a blog post, so its not like they're hidden :icon_lol: Plus, the couple was extra okay with me using them for advertising and marketing purposes anyway.

Frankly, no good wedding photographer doesn't keep the copyright and display rights. The only wedding photographers who don't keep copyright are the ones that tend to suck, to where they have nothing else to sell except "Oh hey, you can have the copyright and image rights" and besides, they tend not to be worth displaying anyway. If a couple wants copyright with me and the vast majority of good to excellent wedding photographers out there, they have to pay $$$$$ for it. Part of mine and others pricing is taking into account the fact we can use them for marketing, portfolio/etc purposes, otherwise it's not worth the time and effort. And frankly, they better be paying me $$$$$ before I give them ownership of an image I took and created using my experience and knowledge.

I realize it's different in the other photographic fields.


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

When I was doing weddings back in the 80's I was probably one of, if not the most expensive in my area of NY. I figured if you wanted me you payed for me. But I also did a lot of things others weren't doing. All negs belonged to me and like you I kept all rights. Nowadays I do very little professional shoots. Those I agree to do cost. My legs can't take the wedding shoots anymore but I have 2 other shooters I trained so they get my referrals.

I like the film look. Just not the look of that software. Or maybe it's just your settings.

What about 15? Is it an illusion or did you pop him in?


----------



## TickleMyElmo (Aug 13, 2009)

GraphicGr8s said:


> When I was doing weddings back in the 80's I was probably one of, if not the most expensive in my area of NY. I figured if you wanted me you payed for me. But I also did a lot of things others weren't doing. All negs belonged to me and like you I kept all rights. Nowadays I do very little professional shoots. Those I agree to do cost. My legs can't take the wedding shoots anymore but I have 2 other shooters I trained so they get my referrals.
> 
> I like the film look. Just not the look of that software. Or maybe it's just your settings.
> 
> What about 15? Is it an illusion or did you pop him in?


Yeah I know what you mean, I don't want a lot of clients, I want the best ones. The ones that like me for my style, and the work I do. I will eventually be rather expensive, right now I'm priced low for my first season of full time wedding coverage. I'd rather have a few high paying clients than a lot of cheap budget clients. Less headache in the long run too. 

And no, I didn't pop him in. Just the depth of field....


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

TickleMyElmo said:


> Yeah I know what you mean, I don't want a lot of clients, I want the best ones. The ones that like me for my style, and the work I do. I will eventually be rather expensive, *right now I'm priced low* for my first season of full time wedding coverage. I'd rather have a few high paying clients than a lot of cheap budget clients. Less headache in the long run too.
> 
> And no, I didn't pop him in. Just the depth of field....


Problem with that is it tends to stick with you. People think of you as the "cheap photographer". One of the other forums I am on had a thread discussing that. It winds up being a catch 22. After I decided to shoot professional (while you weren't even a twinkle in your momma's eye.) I went with pricing that was higher than most that had more experience. It was a mind game. He's more money. He has to be better. He has to have better equipment. I did every wedding with a K1000 and 3 lenses. A Vivitar 2900 handle mount flash for lighting. And one really really long PC cord for the flash. No radio triggers. Along with some reflectors.

You got lucky on 15. It looks so much like his elbow is behind her.


----------



## TickleMyElmo (Aug 13, 2009)

GraphicGr8s said:


> Problem with that is it tends to stick with you. People think of you as the "cheap photographer". One of the other forums I am on had a thread discussing that. It winds up being a catch 22. After I decided to shoot professional (while you weren't even a twinkle in your momma's eye.) I went with pricing that was higher than most that had more experience. It was a mind game. He's more money. He has to be better. He has to have better equipment. I did every wedding with a K1000 and 3 lenses. A Vivitar 2900 handle mount flash for lighting. And one really really long PC cord for the flash. No radio triggers. Along with some reflectors.
> 
> You got lucky on 15. It looks so much like his elbow is behind her.


Oh I'm well aware of all that stuff. That why my prices will rise more than double after this season, if not before. I just want the initial contacts, and then I'm off to the races. I don't expect referrals at all, since low priced works brings low priced referrals. It's fascinating the way pricing works, and how raising your prices overnight can mean getting into a whole new level or work based on price alone. It is very much a psychology thing, but it works on people all the time. A Lincoln is a rebadge Ford, but there's people that will buy the Lincoln every time based on price, status, and perceived quality based upon price. The quality doesn't have to be better, but people will assume it is, and that's all you need.

There's people that wouldn't pay $100 for a photographer, and there's people that wouldn't pay less than $5,000, the trick is getting into that market, which is easier than it looks once you get the initial $5K client (who refers other $5K clients based on their socioeconomic circle) and as long as your quality of work is acceptable. It doesn't have to be amazing, or the best, just acceptable.


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

TickleMyElmo said:


> Oh I'm well aware of all that stuff. That why my prices will rise more than double after this season, if not before. I just want the initial contacts, and then I'm off to the races. I don't expect referrals at all, since low priced works brings low priced referrals. It's fascinating the way pricing works, and how raising your prices overnight can mean getting into a whole new level or work based on price alone. It is very much a psychology thing, but it works on people all the time. A Lincoln is a rebadge Ford, but there's people that will buy the Lincoln every time based on price, status, and perceived quality based upon price. The quality doesn't have to be better, but people will assume it is, and that's all you need.
> 
> There's people that wouldn't pay $100 for a photographer, and there's people that wouldn't pay less than $5,000, the trick is getting into that market, which is easier than it looks once you get the initial $5K client (who refers other $5K clients based on their socioeconomic circle) and as long as your quality of work is acceptable. *It doesn't have to be amazing, or the best, just acceptable.*


Work being "acceptable" is fully unacceptable. That's one of the faults I see in your generation. You should always, always give it your all. When you find you aren't maybe it's time to find another line of work.


----------



## TickleMyElmo (Aug 13, 2009)

GraphicGr8s said:


> Work being "acceptable" is fully unacceptable. That's one of the faults I see in your generation. You should always, always give it your all. When you find you aren't maybe it's time to find another line of work.



The last comment I made about you're work only needing to be acceptable was about in comparison to other top shooters. As in, there will always be somebody out there better than you, but you don't need to be _*the*_ rock star of wedding photography to get hired. As in, just because there's some people out there that you perceive to be better than you, or with a different style, doesn't mean you'll never get hired and that you should just charge rock bottom prices to get any work. A lot of people fall into that trap (the woeful poor artist type), and I think its wrong to do so. You work absolutely should be amazing, but its bad to fall into the "I suck I'll never be as good as _____" trap, because you'll end up charging substandard prices when in reality the ability to book high end weddings depends on so much more than your work alone.

Get what I mean?


----------



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

Sorry Erick, I was just going by what you said. 
Of course, there is always someone better, faster, smarter or richer than you. Let's face it to be in this business you need to have a decent sized ego. Fortunately I had that and then some. That was one of two things that got me my largest wedding ever at 19.


----------

