Amateur Photographer
Discussion
Hi All,
I'm looking to get married in May 2012 and will be looking for a photographer for the wedding/reception due to keeping costs down I thought I would check on here if there are any good amateur photographers that I could use for my wedding.
I will confirm the date in the next few days and would require him/her to attend the church and reception, we can talk about fee's and you and your partner are welcome to stay at the reception for some drinks and bite to eat
The location will be Chelmsford, Essex.
Cheers
I'm looking to get married in May 2012 and will be looking for a photographer for the wedding/reception due to keeping costs down I thought I would check on here if there are any good amateur photographers that I could use for my wedding.
I will confirm the date in the next few days and would require him/her to attend the church and reception, we can talk about fee's and you and your partner are welcome to stay at the reception for some drinks and bite to eat
The location will be Chelmsford, Essex.
Cheers
Hopefully, Simpo's away on holiday at the moment ...
There's a whole lot of activity in the photography press and on blogs at the moment about wedding photography and the "weekend warriors", 'togs who have full-time non-photography jobs and "do a few weddings" at the weekends on a amateur basis and for a bit of pocket-money. You can imagine the type of things being debated; it can get rather heated.
As a photographer who does a few weddings, I'm quite comfortable with the situation. For the professional wedding photographer, I can imagine that there is some incredulity as to why the photography aspect of the wedding is the part where cost savings are to be made. But every wedding photographer had to start somewhere and no doubt had the same qualms and made the same mistakes and omissions that I did on some of my early attempts. It's having good, sound experience of photography generally that saves you on those occasions and I don't see why a competent, experienced amateur cannot provide a good photography service for a wedding. Interesting to see what others think though.
There's a whole lot of activity in the photography press and on blogs at the moment about wedding photography and the "weekend warriors", 'togs who have full-time non-photography jobs and "do a few weddings" at the weekends on a amateur basis and for a bit of pocket-money. You can imagine the type of things being debated; it can get rather heated.
As a photographer who does a few weddings, I'm quite comfortable with the situation. For the professional wedding photographer, I can imagine that there is some incredulity as to why the photography aspect of the wedding is the part where cost savings are to be made. But every wedding photographer had to start somewhere and no doubt had the same qualms and made the same mistakes and omissions that I did on some of my early attempts. It's having good, sound experience of photography generally that saves you on those occasions and I don't see why a competent, experienced amateur cannot provide a good photography service for a wedding. Interesting to see what others think though.
This is probably for another thread really, but i might as well chuck my 2p on the subject in.
Whilst i see that for a full time wedding 'tog having all these "amateurs" coming in and taking away business must be annoying, people have got to start somewhere!
I, for example, work in the photography business (I manage a photolab) but would love to do photography as a profession. I'm not going to give up my full time job and just hope that i get bookings for jobs! You have to start by doing the occasional job, testing the water until you have enough contacts etc then jump in and go full time.
Whilst i see that for a full time wedding 'tog having all these "amateurs" coming in and taking away business must be annoying, people have got to start somewhere!
I, for example, work in the photography business (I manage a photolab) but would love to do photography as a profession. I'm not going to give up my full time job and just hope that i get bookings for jobs! You have to start by doing the occasional job, testing the water until you have enough contacts etc then jump in and go full time.
Edited by jimmy156 on Monday 17th October 10:15
I got married early this year so may be able to offer a little advice. We ended up spending quite a bit on our tog. Our thought was that after all the dust has settled after the big day the only things you are left with are the happy memories and the photographs. On that basis a decent chunk of our budget went on the photographer. Ours cost £1500 all in which was for 2 photographers (we actually got four as they had two volunteer seconds with them) to cover the whole day until 10pm. It also included a 'posh' album, two smaller parents albums, a large framed group shot and 5 A4 framed shots.
Looking back, rather than the service seeming expensive, I actually think it was an absolute bargain for the service we actually received. In the world of weddings where everything is marked up, it was a breath of fresh air. The finished products are superb.
We spoke to a few photographers ranging from the 'weekend warrior' types to the full blown pros. Just to highlight some of the potential benefits (I say potential as you need to check for yourself) of using a proper pro.
A website that shows actual recent wedding (and lots of them) rather than short portfolio of their best work
Public liability insurance, some venues will insist on it but it ought to be in place regardless.
Primary and back up gear and lots of it. There were 5 Nikon D3S's at our wedding, and countless 70-200's. My jealousy meter was off the scale of course but on a practical note, it was reassuring to know that no matter what gear gave up the ghost, there was a spare to hand.
A backup photographer. If for any reason our photographer had been unable to attend, he had local reserves who could stand in. This is obviously quite a reassurance.
Our guy knew both the church and venue inside out as he had shot there many times, knew the lighting and all the little hidden spots that are great photo locations.
There are of course lots of other considerations but that's just a few pointers. It does depend a lot on how important you consider the photos. We were very keen to capture the day with high quality photos but not everybody is as bothered but the fact you're asking probably indicates that you care as well.
Looking back, rather than the service seeming expensive, I actually think it was an absolute bargain for the service we actually received. In the world of weddings where everything is marked up, it was a breath of fresh air. The finished products are superb.
We spoke to a few photographers ranging from the 'weekend warrior' types to the full blown pros. Just to highlight some of the potential benefits (I say potential as you need to check for yourself) of using a proper pro.
A website that shows actual recent wedding (and lots of them) rather than short portfolio of their best work
Public liability insurance, some venues will insist on it but it ought to be in place regardless.
Primary and back up gear and lots of it. There were 5 Nikon D3S's at our wedding, and countless 70-200's. My jealousy meter was off the scale of course but on a practical note, it was reassuring to know that no matter what gear gave up the ghost, there was a spare to hand.
A backup photographer. If for any reason our photographer had been unable to attend, he had local reserves who could stand in. This is obviously quite a reassurance.
Our guy knew both the church and venue inside out as he had shot there many times, knew the lighting and all the little hidden spots that are great photo locations.
There are of course lots of other considerations but that's just a few pointers. It does depend a lot on how important you consider the photos. We were very keen to capture the day with high quality photos but not everybody is as bothered but the fact you're asking probably indicates that you care as well.
Not a tog but I’m getting married in the next year or so and am starting to pay more attention to this type of thing.
My fiancée does a bit of amateur photography, purely for us and our family, and was asked by a friend if she could do their wedding. It was a flat out NO from me and after a 5 minute conversation she and they understood why I didn’t want her to do it.
A photographer might well be an amateur and whilst you might be expecting a little less ‘gloss’ on the photos the last thing you want is to sit there thinking ‘Uncle Barry could have done better than that with his point and squirt’ as you thumb through them. An amateur could be on their 300th shot and have all the gear, lights, reflectors and gubbins, or they could be on their 2nd go with a 450D and a few borrowed bits they don’t understand how to use to best effect. What you see when you talk to them before the day might not turn up on the day...
Everyone has to start somewhere but IMO that should be as a second string to a pro, not a substitute. As another poster has said you (usually
) only get one chance at this and the photos are one of the few things you will have left from the £x,000’s you have spent that you will be able to look back on in 5 years+ time.
Be very careful though, even when employing a well regarded Pro. Some friends of ours did this and went through all the sensible checks, including going to the venue with the tog to select the locations and shots they all thought would look best and they would really like. A day or two before the wedding the poor chap slipped a disc and was unable to go, organising a stand in at the last second. Sadly the stand in was a poor substitute to be kind. Whilst they had the gear to the untrained eyes of my g/f and I there were some shots he was taking which we were concerned about (springing to mind one of the couple halfway up a large staircase in front of a large window with bright winter sunlight streaming through taken from the very dark foot of the stairs with no lighting...). He also missed off a number of ‘must have’ shots the couple had asked them to take.
So to sum up I would say that this is one of the few areas where I would look to be sensible with my money but not just try to get the cheapest and certainly make sure you spend time working out all the possibilities.
My fiancée does a bit of amateur photography, purely for us and our family, and was asked by a friend if she could do their wedding. It was a flat out NO from me and after a 5 minute conversation she and they understood why I didn’t want her to do it.
A photographer might well be an amateur and whilst you might be expecting a little less ‘gloss’ on the photos the last thing you want is to sit there thinking ‘Uncle Barry could have done better than that with his point and squirt’ as you thumb through them. An amateur could be on their 300th shot and have all the gear, lights, reflectors and gubbins, or they could be on their 2nd go with a 450D and a few borrowed bits they don’t understand how to use to best effect. What you see when you talk to them before the day might not turn up on the day...
Everyone has to start somewhere but IMO that should be as a second string to a pro, not a substitute. As another poster has said you (usually
) only get one chance at this and the photos are one of the few things you will have left from the £x,000’s you have spent that you will be able to look back on in 5 years+ time.Be very careful though, even when employing a well regarded Pro. Some friends of ours did this and went through all the sensible checks, including going to the venue with the tog to select the locations and shots they all thought would look best and they would really like. A day or two before the wedding the poor chap slipped a disc and was unable to go, organising a stand in at the last second. Sadly the stand in was a poor substitute to be kind. Whilst they had the gear to the untrained eyes of my g/f and I there were some shots he was taking which we were concerned about (springing to mind one of the couple halfway up a large staircase in front of a large window with bright winter sunlight streaming through taken from the very dark foot of the stairs with no lighting...). He also missed off a number of ‘must have’ shots the couple had asked them to take.
So to sum up I would say that this is one of the few areas where I would look to be sensible with my money but not just try to get the cheapest and certainly make sure you spend time working out all the possibilities.
Staircases are tough subjects, even more so if combined with a big sunlit window behind. No flashgun can match the sun so you expose for the subject and let the window go.
Lighting aside, when a bride is halfway up a staircase looking down it's not the most flattering view (up noses, double chins etc). In this example at Hedingham Castle, although I did take photos as they descended, the best one was when she got down to ground level. It was then just a case of position/composition to get a pleasing result (reportage sequence in realtime, not set-up)
(ETA Thanks Steve, hadn't spotted your post)
Lighting aside, when a bride is halfway up a staircase looking down it's not the most flattering view (up noses, double chins etc). In this example at Hedingham Castle, although I did take photos as they descended, the best one was when she got down to ground level. It was then just a case of position/composition to get a pleasing result (reportage sequence in realtime, not set-up)
(ETA Thanks Steve, hadn't spotted your post)
.
Simpo Two said:
Staircases are tough subjects...
Interesting. The sort of thing I would 'think' to be the case but not have the level of knowledge as to all the pitfalls and the tricks you can use to correct. e.g. I was thinking that a reflector might be the way around that, or simply putting the subjects in the different location...o/t on that photo you put of as an example did you/were you asked to on the real thing, sort out the discolouration of the wall paper? I love the photo and can see it has avoided all the issues you speak of but find my eye drawn to the wall paper!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think it depends. The way I looked at it was that if we were going to spend a lot of money (to us anyway) on a wedding and have a group of people there that may never otherwise be in the same place at the same time, you may as well try and get some nice photos to remember it all by. Our album has been out quite a bit but then we've only been married a few months. I'm sure it'll lie dormant for months, maybe years on end but we'll always have it. And in retrospect, of all the expensive things that we had to pay for, the photographer is the one thing I'm really pleased we didn't compromise on*- Actaully this being Pistonheads, I was rather fond of the MK2 Daimler that took us to our reception. Wouldn't have wanted to do without that!
GetCarter said:
I also can't really comment as me and Mrs Get grabbed two Waitrose checkout girls to witness our wedding, then went for a pie and a pint. No guests, no pics.
Spent the money we saved on a new M3. (Mrs Get's idea... probably why we are still together).
Blimey, you jammy sod. Definitely a keeper!Spent the money we saved on a new M3. (Mrs Get's idea... probably why we are still together).
Rude-boy said:
Interesting. The sort of thing I would 'think' to be the case but not have the level of knowledge as to all the pitfalls and the tricks you can use to correct. e.g. I was thinking that a reflector might be the way around that, or simply putting the subjects in the different location...
You're on the right lines. Essentially some areas are just totally unsuitable for photography and if the couple say 'We want a photo of us there' you have to explain why it won't work. They are always happy to be directed to somewhere I know will work better. The unfortunate stand-in you mentioned may have been blindly following instructions, or didn't have the bravery to say 'Excuse me, this is going to look rubbish, let's move elsewhere'. That of course is one purpose of the location visit - but even then the light can be very different on the day so some last minute improvisation is often needed.There's also a limit to how much lighting you can use; I have taken a couple of studio heads out before but there's extra setting up time and interruption and mains leads for people to fall over, so it's very much a last resort.
Rude-boy said:
o/t on that photo you put of as an example did you/were you asked to on the real thing, sort out the discolouration of the wall paper? I love the photo and can see it has avoided all the issues you speak of but find my eye drawn to the wall paper!
Aw, it balances the small piece of sofa bottom right! No, the wallpaper is part of the room and I wouldn't consider changing it unless they asked (they didn't). On reflection I think it adds extra character to a lovely old room
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff