Recommend Wedding Photographer!!!

jaqian · 15-01-2007 10:25am #1

Hi,
my mate is getting married on the 23rd June and I discovered he hasn't got a photographer yet. I know he's leaving it really late to find one.

Looking for someone whos good but doesn't cost the earth. Know or recommend anyone?

Cheers,
J.

rymus · 15-01-2007 10:58am

in Dublin or are they getting married somewhere else in the country?

jaqian · 15-01-2007 11:14am

Getting married in Glasnevin, Dublin. Sorry should have said. What should I be looking for (albums etc)? What prices can he expect to pay.

edunon · 15-01-2007 11:28am

Probably the best wedding photographer in the country is Mark Nixon.
If you can afford his prices looks like the best option.

jaqian · 15-01-2007 11:40am

Thanks edunon but I'm looking for someone who

me:
doesn't cost the earth

Tarakiwa · 15-01-2007 12:01pm

When I got married we used Eddie Scheffer.

Since then he has been the photographer at my sister in laws wedding / 2 mates weddings / a work colleagues wedding & is booked to look after a few friends weddings in 2007 & 2008!

Great guy. Super work.

www.eddiescheffer.com

Tell him that I say hi!!

T

Sebzy · 15-01-2007 12:02pm

edunon wrote:

Probably the best wedding photographer in the country is Mark Nixon.
If you can afford his prices looks like the best option.

last price check on Mark was €3500. I think he's all booked up this season anyway.

rymus · 15-01-2007 12:11pm

Tarakiwa wrote:

Since then he has been the photographer at my sister in laws wedding / 2 mates weddings / a work colleagues wedding & is booked to look after a few friends weddings in 2007 & 2008!

Jaysus, isn't word of mouth a great thing?!?

*buys a few wedding photography books*

Tarakiwa · 15-01-2007 1:38pm

rymus wrote:

Jaysus, isn't word of mouth a great thing?!?

Sure is ......... but it is not just me who thinks he is great! He has featured in the past 2 issues of Wedding Belle magazine so he must be doing something right.

Plus - besides being a good photographer he is just a bloody good bloke!

jaqian · 15-01-2007 1:58pm

Is there anything for under a grand?

B0rG · 15-01-2007 3:11pm

jaqian wrote:

Is there anything for under a grand?

seriously doubt so.

from the photographer point of view this is about a day spent shooting: wedding - church + banquet + whatever. Output has to be around 100 good photos + 2 - 3 very good ones: bride & groom portrait, portait with parents and with best mates. These usually end up on people desks so they have to be very good photos. Plus about 10 important scenes: rings exchange, bride dressing up, first kiss, etc. Have to be good ones too as they usually open wedding albums.

This means shooting around 300 - 400 pictures, then going through them and postprocess the good ones. Could easily take up to 2 days of work. Allow another 2 days for client negotiations. There is also time for putting up wedding album and dvd (if required).

So what you're looking at is about full week of work for under a 1000. There is also a lot of stress as ppl you're shooting only marrying once, and they want it good, bride usually a little bit stressed so is everybody else around. Bunch of expensive equipment also required: 2 camera bodies - 1 good one and one just in case. 1 short range zoom, one long range zoom. Flash. Other lighting is optional.

So for your budget your best option is your uncle with a digisoap, or... At some point I wanted to team up with a boardie to do a wedding shoot together (increasing potential good photos) and then split the money. Get experience with a wedding scene - what is happening there, what is photographer's role, what he should do, what he shouldn't, what to do there and then. But I'm not sure I'm ready for such project in the next month or so.

Sebzy · 15-01-2007 3:40pm

B0rG I'm still up for the project whenever it's on.

My next wedding is planned for the 27th and should be good
-Tiny chruch
-Loads of people
-Evening formals
-Poorly lit reception and dining area

At least I dont have to worry about NUNS this time

thebaz · 15-01-2007 3:41pm

B0rG wrote:

So what you're looking at is about full week of work for under a 1000. There is also a lot of stress as ppl you're shooting only marrying once, and they want it good, bride usually a little bit stressed so is everybody else around. Bunch of expensive equipment also required: 2 camera bodies - 1 good one and one just in case. 1 short range zoom, one long range zoom. Flash. Other lighting is optional.

.

I would be amazed if photographers took a week over an average wedding .
I'd say a grand is about correct price, unless you are lookin at a top photographer , who can charge what he wants.
At my wedding, we got a top photographer as a present , the guy was there for no more than an hour , we got about 10 pretty average b&w photos (people here, could do better in my opinion) -- yes it was a freebie for us (but he was paid as a gift to us) -- but , i wouldn't think he spent more than a day on this project .

Sebzy · 15-01-2007 3:54pm

I would break a wedding down like this for 1k
- Meet with bride and get details and show work. ( 3 hours )
- Visit church/hotel to look the place over and say hello to the staff.( One eveing )
- The wedding lets just say 5 hours for everything if it's quick
- Post work on about 400-500 shots ( 1 day )
- Meet back with couple and hand over the work ( 3 Hours )

I think that brings us up to about 2 and a half working days for the wedding.

Seb.

B0rG · 15-01-2007 3:55pm

Sebzy wrote:

B0rG I'm still up for the project whenever it's on.

My next wedding is planned for the 27th and should be good
-Tiny chruch
-Loads of people
-Evening formals
-Poorly lit reception and dining area

At least I dont have to worry about NUNS this time

Seb,
If you're looking for a reasonably sized russian with an accent and a photography gear - gimme a shout, I'd make you the company

Sebzy · 15-01-2007 3:59pm

B0rG wrote:

Seb,
If you're looking for a reasonably sized russian with an accent and a photography gear - gimme a shout, I'd make you the company

Sorry this gig is just solo but shall give you a shout next time.
thanks

B0rG · 15-01-2007 4:02pm

thebaz wrote:

I would be amazed if photographers took a week over an average wedding .
I'd say a grand is about correct price, unless you are lookin at a top photographer , who can charge what he wants.
At my wedding, we got a top photographer as a present , the guy was there for no more than an hour , we got about 10 pretty average b&w photos (people here, could do better in my opinion) -- yes it was a freebie for us (but he was paid as a gift to us) -- but , i wouldn't think he spent more than a day on this project .

Well,

from my view this is just unprofessional and you should've talked to him.

jaqian · 15-01-2007 4:07pm

Thanks B0rg for that break-down never realised how much work was entailed.

thebaz · 15-01-2007 4:11pm

B0rG wrote:

Well,

from my view this is just unprofessional and you should've talked to him.

as it was a present it was kind of difficult -- he supposedly was meant to be v. good -- but agree it seemed unprofessional -- just made me wonder -- i know one other guy who works as a wedding and potrait photographer , and again i would not classify his work as great -- so there are opportunities out there :-)

delly · 15-01-2007 4:35pm

I could recommend Kevin McFeely who did my wedding. I was very happy with the results but can't remember how much it cost exactly, however I can recall it being reasonable.

http://www.kevinmcfeely.com/

jaqian · 15-01-2007 4:37pm

Found a fella called Brian Ryan that looks good. Charges a minimum of €1000 for a album of forty photos and a days work. Sends you a album of 6*4 (which you keep) of ALL his photos to choose the forty for the album. For an extra €200 he'll give you a DVD with ALL the photos on it.

http://www.brianryanphotographer.com/

elven · 15-01-2007 4:38pm

I'd say 75% of being a good wedding photographer is being able to handle the people. They act like dumb farm animals when they gather in groups at social events... our guy was fantastic, told us exactly where to stand, where to look, and wasn't scared to boss the mothers-in-law about the place. We also felt comfortable with him when we met him beforehand, and no matter how good a photographer is in a technical/artistic sense, if you don't feel comfortable with them you won't get great shots.

As for quantity of work, he stayed from just before I arrived at the registrar, to the start of the reception - with a fake cutting of the cake for his benefit

He worked in film and had them scanned, then did some PS (converting to bw which I don't expect amounted to more than a few hours.

A tip to save money - we paid a flat fee for the day's work then bought prints individually, rather than a package with an album - those albums themselves cost a hundred quid or so!

Sorry I've no recommendations to the OP, though - this bloke is in N.E. Scotland!

magicbastarder · 15-01-2007 4:47pm

the gas thing is that people spend thousands on a photographer, and then never look at the photos again.
i've done two weddings, both wedding presents for friends, and i've never been asked for the full size shots, after having handed over a CD of 800x600 samples to allow them to choose what they'd like.

m_stan · 15-01-2007 6:14pm

magicbastarder wrote:

...and i've never been asked for the full size shots, after having handed over a CD of 800x600 samples to allow them to choose what they'd like.

the average Joe probably thinks that's all they'd need.

mathias · 15-01-2007 6:48pm

This guy is good , he did our weddings ,his name is Clive Timmons and he is a real character , great with people and very professional , he shoots Contax medium format and should cost between 1300 - 1600 depending on what extras you want , hes based in swords ,

http://www.abiggerpicturephotography.com/

On a general note , most of the professionals will not even give you a CD of shots to choose from without you coughing up at least 50 -75% of the price.
Seen the post above and that must have stung , not getting a response once handing over the CD.

The photographer should also be there nearly all day , thats from his first shots , which should be at the brides house with her and the family getting ready , say around 9 or 10 , to the cutting of the cake , which usually doesnt happen till at least 5 or 6 in the evening.

localchap · 15-01-2007 10:14pm

Oh, I'd find it a bit slow using medium format for wedding rush:rolleyes: IMHO digital would work perfectly, something fast like 1D mark II because every moment would happen just once, not 1Ds(brilliant camera but huge output files+fps is quite slow. Even this man http://www.kevinmcfeely.com/ uses Nikon D100 for wedding sessions:)

elven · 15-01-2007 11:48pm

Ours used MF and 35mm for the candids. He then had them scanned for any photoshop that was required... he said he had tried a digital but just didn't like the results, so stuck with what he knew for the time being. Made no difference to his speed or efficiency for catching moments - he wasn't staring at his LCD when he should have been taking pictures!

DotOrg · 16-01-2007 1:08am

If the original poster is interested, take a look at some of these:
AAAphotos.org/weddings/

As well as shooting bands, myself and my wife shoot weddings. We don't have restrictions like you can't have all the photos we take or you can't have them on CD etc.

All the contact info you need to get either of us is at: www.AAAphotos.org/contact.htm

Fionn · 16-01-2007 1:37am

localchap wrote:

Oh, I'd find it a bit slow using medium format for wedding rush:rolleyes: IMHO digital would work perfectly, something fast like 1D mark II because every moment would happen just once, not 1Ds(brilliant camera but huge output files+fps is quite slow.

I'd have thought that any pro photographer would have more than one camera body with him to deal with the different shooting situations. So maybe the medium format/large file slr for the less hectic shots and something fast for the reportage/candid ones.
I'd imagine it'd be pretty nerve racking to have only one camera body at such an important shoot.

mathias · 16-01-2007 5:42pm

I'd have thought that any pro photographer would have more than one camera body with him to deal with the different shooting situations.

Absolutely , Clive had two Contax 640's with lens mounted and some Nikons for the reportage at the drinks reception , the medium formats were used for the standard posed shots and some others , but the Nikons came into play for the rest of it.

I have done some weddings myself , and I would reckon you'd need at least two cameras and ideally I would like four , with different lens mounted. There is no time for lens changing , thats why most pros will carry at least two.

Again on a side note , I had a big discussion with Clive on why he uses film , the pixel count to match medium format is currently bigger than anything out there , the digital backs , besides being crazy money ,( 7 -8 K each ) will fit his Contax but dont have the pixel count yet. they are still at about 16-17 megapixel.

He also showed me shots of the detail in white wedding dresses , these come up great on the medium format film , but most digitals have problems bringing out the detail with so much white , seems to make sense to me!! Though I'd really like to be in a position to afford digital backs to try for myself.

localchap · 16-01-2007 6:02pm

mathias wrote:

Absolutely , Clive had two Contax 640's with lens mounted and some Nikons for the reportage at the drinks reception , the medium formats were used for the standard posed shots and some others , but the Nikons came into play for the rest of it.

I have done some weddings myself , and I would reckon you'd need at least two cameras and ideally I would like four , with different lens mounted. There is no time for lens changing , thats why most pros will carry at least two.

Again on a side note , I had a big discussion with Clive on why he uses film , the pixel count to match medium format is currently bigger than anything out there , the digital backs , besides being crazy money ,( 7 -8 K each ) will fit his Contax but dont have the pixel count yet. they are still at about 16-17 megapixel.

He also showed me shots of the detail in white wedding dresses , these come up great on the medium format film , but most digitals have problems bringing out the detail with so much white , seems to make sense to me!! Though I'd really like to be in a position to afford digital backs to try for myself.

I'd share every word you said, sure, of course, MF brings you more detailed shots. But how many shots do you normally take through the whole wedding day???Around 600, right?Now, how many shots in regular MF film roll????:D Now simply calculate, even if you do half of job in MF, how many of those rolls you have to have???Not to mention all those post processing, film developing, scanning and so on and so on.Besides, what the biggest picture size normally goes in a wed.album???10 by 12, 10 by 8???Of course if you
do large poster size portraits or canvases MF would be the best. But for the rest IMHO digital is ok, lets say 2X1d+24-70+70-200+580ex is quite enough, if you go for studio session MF with would be advantage of course.
PS: simply check out this man's site :http://www.dannysteyn.com/wedding-photographer-professional-wedding-photographer.htm all wed.photos made with digital, all EXIFs kept

Recommend Wedding Photographer!!!

Comments