The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

[wookie6262]

Pulled the trigger on the 28-70mm. Doing lots of Gigs but they are unpaid and this is very much a treat to myself. I may try a few weddings in the next couple of years though and it will be handy for that

 

[f/1.2]

. I may try a few weddings in the next couple of years though and it will be handy for that

Not really don’t know any wedding photographers that regularly use a mid range zoom anymore.

Most stopped using them about 10 years ago.

 

[snerkler]

Not really don’t know any wedding photographers that regularly use a mid range zoom anymore.

Most stopped using them about 10 years ago.

They still seem very popular to me. I would say 95% of wedding togs I’ve seen have used zooms, and on other media sites the 24-70mm appears to be the go to for many.

Obviously you know a lot more people in the field than I do, but it always surprises me how many still use zooms.

 

[woof woof]

They still seem very popular to me. I would say 95% of wedding togs I’ve seen have used zooms, and on other media sites the 24-70mm appears to be the go to for many.

Obviously you know a lot more people in the field than I do, but it always surprises me how many still use zooms.

Not wedding related, just my thought One advantage with zooms is that you have a better chance of framing a scene as you want from where you need to stand. With a prime if you can only stand in a limited number of places your only way to frame the shot you want for best effect may be to either change primes to suit or crop post capture.

I use primes 99.9% of the time but light allowing and if you're not bothered about f1.x DoF or worried about the extra bulk a zoom might bring surely zooms do give you easier framing options and less hassle than a bag full of primes when you might be time and position limited. The last time I used a zoom was probably Mrs WW's Citizenship ceremony. I took the zoom because I thought I'd need to be quick and probably couldn't stand exactly where I'd want to with my usual prime as these events can be a bit of a scum. Same when I used to go to gigs.

 

[LeeRatters]

Finally got to these old pumps.


*** by Lee, on Flickr

There seems to be a certain split between prime & zoom wedding shooters. You can almost see it in the photos/blogs sometimes. The one we've picked mainly uses a 35GM

 

[woof woof]

My MX5 goes in for its warning light tomorrow (some sort of exhaust flap fault.) I'm hoping to use it more this year. I got it out of the garage today and checked the tyres and levels. It felt great to sit in it and move it just those few feet. I was great hearing it fire up and I left the engine running while I did the bits and bobs. I have it on a trickle charger so it starts first time. I really do love two seat soft tops and I'll be very sad when this one goes.

 

[woof woof]

There seems to be a certain split between prime & zoom wedding shooters. You can almost see it in the photos/blogs sometimes. The one we've picked mainly uses a 35GM

Have I missed something? You getting married?

I thought today could in divorce as I played a joke on Mrs WW. We went clothes shopping for me and of course I'd have been happy to buy from the first shop we went in but I dragged her around 6 or 7 before saying I wanted to go back to the first. She pulled a face and whinged, I said "Ha! That's what it feels like!" Yes I'm sad But she took it well and laughed along. We had a good day and ate out and I'm sure she'll get her own back

 

[f/1.2]

They still seem very popular to me. I would say 95% of wedding togs I’ve seen have used zooms, and on other media sites the 24-70mm appears to be the go to for many.

Obviously you know a lot more people in the field than I do, but it always surprises me how many still use zooms.

I am gonna take a wild guess and say that you don't know that many wedding photographers. I am gonna assume that the only wedding photographers that you have seen using gear have been at the odd wedding you have attended over the last 10 years or or at "workshops" etc.

Busy wedding photographers don't attend that many "workshops", they don't have time. I have been to a few workshops etc. over the years and usually use a 24-70 as it means I only have to carry about 1 x camera, but that doesn't mean I would use it for work.

I have been shooting weddings full time for 12 years, mid range zooms even back then were starting to get less popular. Wedding photographers tend to hang out in the same places both in real life and online so I know how a lot of wedding photographers work and the sort of equipment they use across the world. I could bore you with a list of reasons why I have more knowledge on this than you but I won't waste your time. There are lots of different types of wedding photographers and they all have different ways of doing things but for the vast majority 35mm is the most used lens by far and it isn't even close.

Off course there are a small amount that use a mid range zoom, they tend to be either extremely old school low budget type or complete newbies that made the mistake of buying into a lot of the nonsense you find online about how a mid range f/2.8 zoom is a stable of every professional photographer, the newbies soon learn though. There are hardly any of the old school budget type wedding photographers around any more for lots of different reasons.

An f/2.8 zoom is pretty useless for wedding photography unless you are going to use flash for everything. No client is going to be happy with having a flash being blasted in their face for all of the day. Often flash is frowned upon for the ceremony and rightly so. Clients expectations have changed a lot in the last 10 years or so, even more so in the last 5 years or so as well.

I genuinely have not spoken to another wedding photographer who is a real wedding photographer not some guy that shoots the odd wedding for beer tokens once a month in at least 10 years that uses a mid range zoom regularly. Lots of wedding photographers have one but it's mainly used as a back up lens in case the crap hits the fan. I have the 24-70 G.MII its a fine lens for a mid range zoom, I got it just after it was released, I have used it for the dancing a few times other than that have never used it, before that I had the Tamron 28-75, used it once at a wedding when I was having problems with my 35mm. Before that I had the Nikon 24-70 used it a few times when I first got it quickly realised it was pretty much useless and never used it again.

 

[T_J_G]

I am gonna take a wild guess and say that you don't know that many wedding photographers. I am gonna assume that the only wedding photographers that you have seen using gear have been at the odd wedding you have attended over the last 10 years or or at "workshops" etc.

Busy wedding photographers don't attend that many "workshops", they don't have time. I have been to a few workshops etc. over the years and usually use a 24-70 as it means I only have to carry about 1 x camera, but that doesn't mean I would use it for work.

I have been shooting weddings full time for 12 years, mid range zooms even back then were starting to get less popular. Wedding photographers tend to hang out in the same places both in real life and online so I know how a lot of wedding photographers work and the sort of equipment they use across the world. I could bore you with a list of reasons why I have more knowledge on this than you but I won't waste your time. There are lots of different types of wedding photographers and they all have different ways of doing things but for the vast majority 35mm is the most used lens by far and it isn't even close.

Off course there are a small amount that use a mid range zoom, they tend to be either extremely old school low budget type or complete newbies that made the mistake of buying into a lot of the nonsense you find online about how a mid range f/2.8 zoom is a stable of every professional photographer, the newbies soon learn though. There are hardly any of the old school budget type wedding photographers around any more for lots of different reasons.

An f/2.8 zoom is pretty useless for wedding photography unless you are going to use flash for everything. No client is going to be happy with having a flash being blasted in their face for all of the day. Often flash is frowned upon for the ceremony and rightly so. Clients expectations have changed a lot in the last 10 years or so, even more so in the last 5 years or so as well.

I genuinely have not spoken to another wedding photographer who is a real wedding photographer not some guy that shoots the odd wedding for beer tokens once a month in at least 10 years that uses a mid range zoom regularly. Lots of wedding photographers have one but it's mainly used as a back up lens in case the crap hits the fan. I have the 24-70 G.MII its a fine lens for a mid range zoom, I got it just after it was released, I have used it for the dancing a few times other than that have never used it, before that I had the Tamron 28-75, used it once at a wedding when I was having problems with my 35mm. Before that I had the Nikon 24-70 used it a few times when I first got it quickly realised it was pretty much useless and never used it again.

In a group I’m in I’m seeing a few move back to zooms with the new f2 zooms, but definitely not the norm.

For what it’s worth I don’t carry a zoom on a wedding day.

 

[f/1.2]

In a group I’m in I’m seeing a few move back to zooms with the new f2 zooms, but definitely not the norm.

For what it’s worth I don’t carry a zoom on a wedding day.

I know a few people that got the new Sony f/2 zoom and have already went back to primes. Also know quite a few people that had the Canon f/2 and did the same. Expensive mistake.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It may be hard to change a way of working, plus fast primes do have a very pleasing look.

 

[LeeRatters]

Have I missed something? You getting married?

I thought today could in divorce as I played a joke on Mrs WW. We went clothes shopping for me and of course I'd have been happy to buy from the first shop we went in but I dragged her around 6 or 7 before saying I wanted to go back to the first. She pulled a face and whinged, I said "Ha! That's what it feels like!" Yes I'm sad But she took it well and laughed along. We had a good day and ate out and I'm sure she'll get her own back

Yes. In less than 4 weeks time now!

 

[LeeRatters]

I know a few people that got the new Sony f/2 zoom and have already went back to primes. Also know quite a few people that had the Canon f/2 and did the same. Expensive mistake.

I've shot one wedding. That one for my workmate last November. Spent 95% of it with the 35GM Happily spent, I should add....

 

[f/1.2]

I've shot one wedding. That one for my workmate last November. Spent 95% of it with the 35GM Happily spent, I should add....

Would be surprised if you don’t find that when you get the photos from your wedding at least 70% will be with a 35mm as that is the norm.

Also should have booked me

 

[woof woof]

Yes. In less than 4 weeks time now!

All the best to you and the future Mrs

 

[woof woof]

It may be hard to change a way of working, plus fast primes do have a very pleasing look.

One thing I wonder about is dof. If flash is annoying and not used too often and instead people are using faster than the f2.8 or even f2 that zooms offer you're looking at f1.4 or even f1.2 as that's what primes offer so what do customers think? DoF wont be an issue for a % of shots but do they notice the shallow depth in the tighter shots and peoples eyes potentially being "soft" or do they not notice or care?

If people do care what's the convention? If limited DoF is going to be a thing do people aim to get the brides eyes sharper than the grooms?

 

[f/1.2]

One thing I wonder about is dof. If flash is annoying and not used too often and instead people are using faster than the f2.8 or even f2 that zooms offer you're looking at f1.4 or even f1.2 as that's what primes offer so what do customers think? DoF wont be an issue for a % of shots but do they notice the shallow depth in the tighter shots and peoples eyes potentially being "soft" or do they not notice or care?

If people do care what's the convention? If limited DoF is going to be a thing do people aim to get the brides eyes sharper than the grooms?

D.O.F is dependent on distance from subject not the aperture used which is why it isn’t an issue.

It’s a wedding not headshots.

If you photograph a couple using a 35 f/1.4 or even a 35 f/1.2 both will have their eyes in focus if they are on the same focal plane. For portraits if they are on a different focal plane stopping down to f/2 sorts it.

 

[woof woof]

D.O.F is dependent on distance from subject not the aperture used which is why it isn’t an issue.

It’s a wedding not headshots.

If you photograph a couple using a 35 f/1.4 or even a 35 f/1.2 both will have their eyes in focus if they are on the same focal plane. For portraits if they are on a different focal plane stopping down to f/2 sorts it.

If you think that's the case try taking pictures at f1.4 and f2.8 from the same distance with the same lens and look at the results. For any given focal length and distance wider apertures affect DoF.

The size of the aperture and the distance contribute. For the same framing, with a 50mm f1.4 you'll have bigger physical aperture than you will with a 35mm f1.4 but with the 35mm f1.4 you'll be closer.

You don't need to be taking a headshot for dof to potentially come into play at f1.x with something like a 50mm but your answer may well be to get a couple on the same plane. At f1.4 and 50mm at x distance you should know what your DoF will be and whatever you have could be enough unless people pixel peep and that's what I was asking.

 

[ancient_mariner]

If you think that's the case try taking pictures at f1.4 and f2.8 from the same distance with the same lens and look at the results. For any given focal length and distance wider apertures affect DoF.

I took some pictures at a friends wedding using the 50 f1.2 a year ago. Everything that needed to be in focus was, and the bonus was some nice subject separation. The thing is that people don't even notice noise in pictures most of te time, let alone minor depth of field issues, and ordinary members of the public viewing pictures on facebook or prints in an album (does anyone do that now) won't notice either. But a part of the skill in managing this type of lens is lining up the subjects so that the important areas are sharp enough.

She was also very pleased with the pictures.

 

[f/1.2]

If you think that's the case try taking pictures at f1.4 and f2.8 from the same distance with the same lens and look at the results. For any given focal length and distance wider apertures affect DoF.

The size of the aperture and the distance contribute. For the same framing, with a 50mm f1.4 you'll have bigger physical aperture than you will with a 35mm f1.4 but with the 35mm f1.4 you'll be closer.

You don't need to be taking a headshot for dof to potentially come into play at f1.x with something like a 50mm but your answer may well be to get a couple on the same plane. At f1.4 and 50mm at x distance you should know what your DoF will be and whatever you have could be enough unless people pixel peep and that's what I was asking.

I don't need to take test photos at f/1.4 and f/2.8 I have photographed over 700 weddings and photographed thousands of couples.

I took some pictures at a friends wedding using the 50 f1.2 a year ago. Everything that needed to be in focus was, and the bonus was some nice subject separation. The thing is that people don't even notice noise in pictures most of te time, let alone minor depth of field issues, and ordinary members of the public viewing pictures on facebook or prints in an album (does anyone do that now) won't notice either. But a part of the skill in managing this type of lens is lining up the subjects so that the important areas are sharp enough.

She was also very pleased with the pictures.

A lot of wedding photographers add noise in post especially in the shadows as it fits a popular atheistic although that trend is starting to disappear now. Noise isn't viewable at all in the sort of print sizes that would be in a wedding album, even noise added in post. Albums are still reasonably popular around half of our couples buy one and there has been a bit of a resurgence in print sales from weddings right across the board in the last couple of years. Younger couples don't really use Facebook even Instagram is slowly dying a death, most younger couples use Snapchat and TikTok, so image quality in terms of how they make use of their images and share them online is probably less important than ever.

The most popular trends for for wedding photography right now is way out of whack horizons and weird angles and lots of out of focus images. The out of focus thing started with photographers wanting to show movement in images but then escalated rapidly to the point where everything out of focus is deemed art. A very badly out of focus image with a wonky horizon is the trendiest image you can provide right now as a wedding photographer. We don't do trends as they come and go and it will be something else in 12 months time. but lots do. It's funny the way things come back around their is also a growing trend for old school on camera flash portraits, the more badly over exposed the better.

 

[ancient_mariner]

A lot of wedding photographers add noise in post especially in the shadows as it fits a popular atheistic

What a godless thing to do.

 

[woof woof]

I don't need to take test photos at f/1.4 and f/2.8 I have photographed over 700 weddings and photographed thousands of couples.

My question was what customers think in the % of shots where there's the potential for one of the couples eyes being sharper than the other persons when the shooter is using primes at wider apertures than zooms give. That might not have happened to you but customers can be awkward and just I wondered.

Beyond that and I do know I can be a pedant and a geek but just for people who might need to know the technicalities and as Scottie said you canna change the laws of physics and aperture absolutely matters as does distance.

 

[woof woof]

I took some pictures at a friends wedding using the 50 f1.2 a year ago. Everything that needed to be in focus was, and the bonus was some nice subject separation. The thing is that people don't even notice noise in pictures most of te time, let alone minor depth of field issues, and ordinary members of the public viewing pictures on facebook or prints in an album (does anyone do that now) won't notice either. But a part of the skill in managing this type of lens is lining up the subjects so that the important areas are sharp enough.

She was also very pleased with the pictures.

As I thought, a lot of people don't seem to notice things that are blindingly obvious to others. I can imagine customers zooming in on their tablet / phone and wanting the difficult if not impossible but hopefully customers that'd do this are once in a blue moon. I'm sure we've all had customers with expectations which go a bit far but if dof at f1.x isn't an issue then it's one less thing to worry about.

 

[f/1.2]

What a godless thing to do.

My question was what customers think in the % of shots where there's the potential for one of the couples eyes being sharper than the other persons when the shooter is using primes at wider apertures than zooms give. That might not have happened to you but customers can be awkward and just I wondered.

Beyond that and I do know I can be a pedant and a geek but just for people who might need to know the technicalities and as Scottie said you canna change the laws of physics and aperture absolutely matters as does distance.

Like I said I have photographed over 700 weddings and thousands of couples. It has never been a question that has been asked. In the 12 years I have been a wedding photographer full time I have had 2 complaints from a bride and groom. One was donkeys years ago because I photoshopped out a scar on the forehead of a bride from a getting ready photo, the other was because my wife fell very ill on the morning of the wedding and ended up in hospital, and I had no option but to shoot it on my own. The only other complaint we have had was from an aunt of a bride who didnlt like a joke I made at her expense, that is it.

Aperture doesn't matter if distance is correct. When you photograph a couple they are very close together and mostly on the same focal plane. Sometimes I will step down to f/2 for tight portraits but generally wide open is fine, the difference between the focal plane of the bride and the groom is very small.

Same thing with group shots as well, everyone will do it a different way, but I shoot all group shots with a 35 and a 50. For most group photos I shoot group photos on the 35 at f/2 as that allows for any movement from someone being an asshole and not standing where they should, I also shoot them all with a 50 at f/1.2. 99 times in 100 I only deliver the photos shot with the 50 at f/1.2 as they generally just look nicer, I only deliver the shots taken with the 35 at f/2 if someone has moved from where I told them to stand and they are then on a different focal plane than everyone else. Distance to subject is key, aperture doesn't really matter. I can do that because the G.M lenses are ridiculously sharp wide open. I appreciate you haven't used any of them and it may not be possible with lower spec equipment to work that way. Plus I am only guessing but I don't think I have ever seen you mention on here that you have been photographing couples. When I shot Nikon I used a 35 at f/2.8 and an 85 at f/2 for group photos as the lenses weren't as sharp wide open.

I have shot a ton of weddings for other wedding photographers and photographers from every type of genre you can possibly imagine. People care if they look nice and if the moments are all there and the moments they didn't get to see themselves are there, they couldn't give a fiddlers for the technical aspects and that goes for other photographers as well. A good or at least average wedding photographer should be able to produce photos that generate an emotive response from the couple, nothing else really matters.

 

[woof woof]

I have shot a ton of weddings for other wedding photographers and photographers from every type of genre you can possibly imagine. People care if they look nice and if the moments are all there and the moments they didn't get to see themselves are there, they couldn't give a fiddlers for the technical aspects and that goes for other photographers as well.

Good. But even then with some people

Like I said I have photographed over 700 weddings and thousands of couples. It has never been a question that has been asked. In the 12 years I have been a wedding photographer full time I have had 2 complaints from a bride and groom. One was donkeys years ago because I photoshopped out a scar on the forehead of a bride from a getting ready photo, the other was because my wife fell ill on the morning of the wedding and I had no option but to shoot it on my own. The only other complaint we have had was from an aunt of a bride who didnlt like a joke I made at her expense, that is it.

Aperture doesn't matter if distance is correct. When you photograph a couple they are very close together and mostly on the same focal plane. Sometimes I will step down to f/2 for tight portraits but generally wide open is fine, the difference between the focal plane of the bride and the groom is very small.

Same thing with group shots as well, everyone will do it a different way, but I shoot all group shots with a 35 and a 50. For most group photos I shoot group photos on the 35 at f/2 as that allows for any movement from someone being an asshole and not standing were they should, I also shoot them all with a 50 at f/1.2. 99 times in 100 I only deliver the photos shot with the 50 at f/1.2 as they generally just look nicer, I only deliver the shots taken with the 35 at f/2 if someone has moved from where I told them to stand and they on a different focal plane than everyone else. Distance to subject is key, aperture doesn't really matter. I can do that because the G.M lenses are ridiculously sharp wide open. I appreciate you haven't used any of them and it may not be possible with lower spec equipment to work that way. Plus I only guessing but I don't think I have ever seen you mention on here that you have been photographing couples.

I have shot a ton of weddings for other wedding photographers and photographers from every type of genre you can possibly imagine. People care if they look nice and if the moments are all there and the moments they didn't get to see themselves are there, they couldn't give a fiddlers for the technical aspects and that goes for other photographers as well.

Good but there must be limits, with some customers.

I do have lenses which are sharp at wide apertures and I must have photographed thousands of couple and group shots over the years but the difference is they're not wedding shots and they're not for customers. In my work history I've had many thousands of customers, I know what customers can be like which is why I asked the question. If it's not an issue then, as above, one less thing...

 

[f/1.2]

Good. But even then with some people


Good but there must be limits, with some customers.

I do have lenses which are sharp at wide apertures and I must have photographed thousands of couple and group shots over the years but the difference is they're not wedding shots and they're not for customers. In my work history I've had many thousands of customers, I know what customers can be like which is why I asked the question. If it's not an issue then, as above, one less thing...

Like I mentioned above if your a wedding photographer at the moment that can deliver a very out of focus photo with a wonky horizon you would be extremely successful and regarded as cutting edge. People don't care about the technical aspects of photography they care about their emotional response when they see the photographs. Emotions trump everything else.

That is why there are plenty of wedding photographers that produce ridiculously bad work, some to an absolutely shocking standard of technical ability but they still get bookings because they are able to produce work that some couples will find emotive.

Just as one example there is a local wedding photographer that gets a lot of work, every photographer in the country laughs at them because their work is shocking, it's actually embarrassingly bad and even though I generally don't get involved in all the nonsense that goes on between wedding photographers, I would be genuinely ashamed if I was producing the level of work that they do. They still get work because they are able to produce an emotive response in the couples that book them. The couples don't care that they shoot everything in auto, the couples don't care if every photo they deliver has been edited a different way and that there is no sense of consistency in their work, the couples don't even care that their photos are mostly out of focus and have absolutely mental horizons.

 

[Faldrax]

Like I mentioned above if your a wedding photographer at the moment that can deliver a very out of focus photo with a wonky horizon you would be extremely successful and regarded as cutting edge. People don't care about the technical aspects of photography they care about their emotional response when they see the photographs. Emotions trump everything else.

That is why there are plenty of wedding photographers that produce ridiculously bad work, some to an absolutely shocking standard of technical ability but they still get bookings because they are able to produce work that some couples will find emotive.

Just as one example there is a local wedding photographer that gets a lot of work, every photographer in the country laughs at them because their work is shocking, it's actually embarrassingly bad and even though I generally don't get involved in all the nonsense that goes on between wedding photographers, I would be genuinely ashamed if I was producing the level of work that they do. They still get work because they are able to produce an emotive response in the couples that book them. The couples don't care that they shoot everything in auto, the couples don't care if every photo they deliver has been edited a different way and that there is no sense of consistency in their work, the couples don't even care that their photos are mostly out of focus and have absolutely mental horizons.

I suspect the 'emotive response' from other photographers to the images is different to that of the couples.
I know that when my children were younger (so still let me take photos of them) if I was going to select a few to share with family I'd do an initial filter to remove any that I didn't like, then let my wife select which to use, as if I did the full selection I'd invariably get 'why did you choose that one?' for some shots.

 

[f/1.2]

I suspect the 'emotive response' from other photographers to the images is different to that of the couples.
I know that when my children were younger (so still let me take photos of them) if I was going to select a few to share with family I'd do an initial filter to remove any that I didn't like, then let my wife select which to use, as if I did the full selection I'd invariably get 'why did you choose that one?' for some shots.

Not really most people think they are pretty crap not just other photographers.

People aren’t all the same though and even when the majority thinks something is crap some people will like it.

Although I get what you are saying often the photos I like best from a wedding are not the one’s my wife likes best. I tend to like stuff that is technically good where that’s not really a consideration for my wife.

 

[nog]

.LCE have the FDA-EP21 eyecup in stock, IIRC someone on here said it was much better than original for A7R V etc

​

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...where that’s not really a consideration for my wife.

Nor, I think, for 99.99% of people who look at pictures.

I am sure that so-called "technical quality" is a complete irrelevance to almost everyone who looks at a picture. What matters to them is what it shows and the reasons why they are looking at it.

 

[T_J_G]

I know a few people that got the new Sony f/2 zoom and have already went back to primes. Also know quite a few people that had the Canon f/2 and did the same. Expensive mistake.

Problem is most people hanging out in these groups just want the latest gear, and must spend thousands and thousands on doing so just to change 3 months later.

I can’t be bothered with all of that, I tend to replace gear when it’s knackered or something that will make my job substantially easier or have an added benefit for my clients.

The same ones that obsess over OCF work that involves half hour of setup for an image that is not relevant to the wedding at all.

 

[f/1.2]

Problem is most people hanging out in these groups just want the latest gear, and must spend thousands and thousands on doing so just to change 3 months later.

I can’t be bothered with all of that, I tend to replace gear when it’s knackered or something that will make my job substantially easier or have an added benefit for my clients.

The same ones that obsess over OCF work that involves half hour of setup for an image that is not relevant to the wedding at all.

Very true

I have been a bit of a gear hound myself to be fair but not so much these days. Have a great selection of gear that I am very happy with. Will probably grab a new body in the new financial year to replace my last A9 but can’t see me needing anything else for a good long while.

Also those OCF dudes with their constant backlit stuff at night give me the ick. Same thing over and over again bores me to tears. To be fair though that must be what their couples want.

 

[woof woof]

Couples might be influenced by trends but if they look at their wedding shots in years to come when tastes might have changed again I wonder if they'll feel the same.

 

[LeeRatters]

Couples might be influenced by trends but if they look at their wedding shots in years to come when tastes might have changed again I wonder if they'll feel the same.

I think we've picked someone who doesn't seem to have anything that follows 'trends' on his portfolio. In fact, his portfolio is pretty much in the style that I think I would shoot weddings if I did that regularly.

I would presume shooting a wedding [as a professional] is pretty much the same regardless but I wonder if there's any extra pressure (?) as such if you know the groom/bride are a photographer themselves....? I'm not sure if Tommy or Tim have any input on that?

 

[woof woof]

I think we've picked someone who doesn't seem to have anything that follows 'trends' on his portfolio. In fact, his portfolio is pretty much in the style that I think I would shoot weddings if I did that regularly.

Good I hope you'll both be happy with the results when you first see them and also when you look at them in years to come.

I ended up processing our wedding pictures. It took months to even get the raws.

 

[mstphoto]

Not really don’t know any wedding photographers that regularly use a mid range zoom anymore.

Most stopped using them about 10 years ago.

When I shot weddings, the 24-105 was my goto lens.
I could get full length, half length and head & shoulder shots from the same spot.
I found speed was of the essence and didn't have time to mess around changing lenses

 

[snerkler]

My question was what customers think in the % of shots where there's the potential for one of the couples eyes being sharper than the other persons when the shooter is using primes at wider apertures than zooms give. That might not have happened to you but customers can be awkward and just I wondered.

Beyond that and I do know I can be a pedant and a geek but just for people who might need to know the technicalities and as Scottie said you canna change the laws of physics and aperture absolutely matters as does distance.

Honestly people just don’t see it if someone’s eyes are slightly out of focus etc, they just see someone with a nice smile etc.

Couples might be influenced by trends but if they look at their wedding shots in years to come when tastes might have changed again I wonder if they'll feel the same.

I think their tastes may change when it comes to the processing etc, but in terms of focus, noise they’ll always be oblivious.

My wedding photos are more of your traditional type and I’d love them to be the more modern what I call “hello magazine style” , i.e. elegantly posed, ‘trendy’ processing, arty, shallow dof etc but that wasn’t really done back then.

 

[f/1.2]

Couples might be influenced by trends but if they look at their wedding shots in years to come when tastes might have changed again I wonder if they'll feel the same.

A lot of weeks back we got booked by a couple whose wedding was about 18 months ago, they had booked someone else for their wedding who delivered the out of focus style that is trendy right now. They loved what they got back from their wedding photographer at the time but had a few comments made by family and friends that concerned them so they put back on their wedding clothes and we reshot their portraits for them. A couple of years ago we did the same thing for a couple that got married in the states who no longer liked the ultra trendy images their photographer delivered. However there is an argument for saying that those sort of trendy fads are part of the time their wedding happened.

I would presume shooting a wedding [as a professional] is pretty much the same regardless but I wonder if there's any extra pressure (?) as such if you know the groom/bride are a photographer themselves....? I'm not sure if Tommy or Tim have any input on that?

Have shot a ton of weddings for other photographers both professional and amateur as well as other wedding photographers. Will be honest and say that the first for another wedding photographer was a bit more daunting than normal, however it was actually one of the easiest weddings we have shot as he had more understanding around giving us the time needed etc. Never really made any difference with any of the others even with the other wedding photographers as had already done one. We booked a wedding for another wedding photographer just the other week, they are based in Hong Kong and have a huge following on social media and there work is absolutely great. We will just treat it the same as any other wedding at the end of the day they wouldn't have booked us if they didn't like our work and how we do things.

However I would say that having seen this discussed between other wedding photographers, some do panic a bit and it can make it a difficult day for them. That would more be related to shooting other professionals weddings though, would be surprised if your photographer would give even a second thought to shooting a wedding for someone who shoots hobbyist stuff. I wouldn't be concerned although maybe don't over egg the photography talk to put him more at ease as you run the risk if he is prone to being a bit of a panic merchant, of putting them ill at ease. I am ultra confident when I am working and not to much fazes me but it would surprise you how introverted and self aware wedding photographers are. It's actually a job that often attracts people who are a bit precious and lack confidence for some reason, which is why many aren't able to do the job for more than a few years.

We have only ever had one wedding in recent years were I was a little bit nervous beforehand it was for a guy that shoots all of the content for a YouTube channel that is the 14th biggest in the world and has over 60 million followers, he also shoots all the behind the scenes stuff for the t.v show the same guys have in the states, they also have 45 million odd followers on TikTok and Instagram. Just because of the t.v show and the mental amount of social media followers etc. I was slightly concerned about it beforehand, on the day though it was grand and they shared some stuff we had shot on their socials which gained us a ton of new followers.

I found speed was of the essence and didn't have time to mess around changing lenses

That is why the majority of wedding photographers use multiple bodies at the same time.

 

[mstphoto]

That is why the majority of wedding photographers use multiple bodies at the same time.

Couldn't be annoyed working that way
I only used the one body and lens with one as a backup - just incase of some disaster

 

[f/1.2]

Couldn't be annoyed working that way
I only used the one body and lens with one as a backup - just incase of some disaster

Each to their own, the vast majority use multiple bodies, which allows them to always have one wide and one normal or tele at f/1.4 etc.

We bring 6 bodies to every wedding, we use 2 at a time each and each have another as both a back up or on the off chance we need something super wide or long.