tom (and anyone else who is following this thread!) - with regards to this para. " Hmm. I throw out 2/3 of what I shoot, but I wouldn't call them crap. Most of them are dups, and I pick the best of a set.
I shot about 10 frames to get these 3: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/boland/4462.htm http://www.bigdayphoto.com/boland/4463.htm http://www.bigdayphoto.com/boland/4464.htm Are the other 7 frames crap? Well, some of them were, but most of them were just "also-rans". I got to pic the best 3 out 10." Those are cool shots, I'll bet that she'll love them! BUT, I think it was Bruce(?) who posted about the different markets etc? I went and looked at the whole album from that wedding, and your shots are sensational (i am totally humbled and feel that my "work" is positively amateur in comparison to yours and also Bruces wedding work...) BTW, in regards to not calling the "outakes" crap, well, most of mine seriously are, and I like to remind myself of this so that I continue to improve and never get to a point where I think I am so good that I never take a crap shot, iykwim? The way I refer to them in a "nicer" context are as "rejects" or "out-takes"... Well, the whole photojournalistic thing hasn't reallly "caught on" in these parts, and to most of my couples here, they would be disappointed if I didn't give them 2/3 of their collection as "posed" shots. This takes ALOT of time to set up - I guess this is why I am only able to produce, at most 300 shots per wedding. When I say "posed" shots, I don't mean boring old stand in a line and smile, but rather creatively posed, such as those that I posted on the grayscale thread. Often, my "candid" shots are completely set up to look just like that. For example THIS one, which is one of my alltime favourite wedding photos that I have ever taken: http://www.tanyamayer.com/themarriage/hanrahankissbw.jpg Here is a link to an (almost complete - not all of the family and still-life shots are here) wedding from last weekend... This one was a garden ceremony, as most of mine in this region are... Sorry, if they look scrappy, they are low res and not colour corrected, this is just a proofing page for the couples family... oh, you'll need the username - tmp and the password - weddings. http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/anderson/ See how the style is so different? So, with that in mind, I find that I am able to still get good coverage with only 150-200 shots per wedding, and it also saves my clients money - which is a big thing where I am as we are in drought and most of the farmers on the land are barely making ends meet.... BTW, whilst you are all looking at that gallery, if anyone has the time, could you please have a look at the shots of the couple with the horse - any idea why my flash didn't fill the shadows on their faces? I was really close, shot with a 28mm and 50mm lens. I'm thinking it is because the flash has exposed for the white of the dress? But truly, I have no idea... Those shots look like absolute crap, and that is what I mean about me having a LOT to learn... Not only are the shadows really bad, major hotspots all over, but they are very poorly composed too. NOT one of my finest photographic moments there... I almost threw those in the trash can before even showing them to the couple, who ironically "love" them. There truly is no accounting for taste sometimes. AND, does anyone have any sure fire tips for preventing shine on faces from flash and reduce contrast for reception pics? No matter what bounce options, softboxes etc I have tried on my flash gun, I have never been able to find what I feel is a satisfactory result... what the bloody hell is a "triptych"?!?! (hope i didn't offend anyone by using the "h" word!) tan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 5:02 AM Subject: RE: Re[2]: card storage in the field > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sometimes, I will get a really generous couple who > > *force* me to sit > > at one of their guests tables and eat a meal during the > > reception (which > > even though I am usually starving, I hate as it means I have to stay > > longer!)... > > I put it in my contract, they have to feed me and my assistant a hot > meal. > > My the time dinner rolls around I'll have been on my feet for 5 hours. > I need food or I'll get cranky. > > > I have never had a > > bride "demand" > > makeup, they just usually ask when booking me as a > > photographer "oh, can you > > do my face to?". > > I would just start saying "no" from now on. Just explain how demanding > the work is, how you need to concentrate on the photography, etc.... > > > With regards to charging for the service, > > I'll generally > > just add 50 bucks to their package price to cover me for my > > time. > > For 3 hours!? > > > I have lessened the blow by > > calling it a > > "Wedding Photography Agreement" and prettying it up a bit.... > > Yeah, that's what mine says. I basically just explain that it's a way > for everyone to understand what will be expected of both parties. > > > > > How many weddings do I have booked for 2003? Do you mean > > for the entire > > year, or just the remaining weeks? If it is for the entire > > year, I have had > > 26 so far. I have another 2 to do before New Year. So > > far, for 2004, I > > have 18 booked, with 2 in January, and then every weekend > > from February > > through to mid April completely booked out, with another > > couple for June, > > August and September. > > That's good. > > > > > > I totally understand that when shooting digital, you will > > shoot more, as > > much for experimentation as anything else. I also TOTALLY > > agree with Bruce > > that those photographers shooting 1000+ pics for 1 wedding > > are just crazy. > > I am sure that half of them must be total crap cause I know > > that for myself, > > if I were to shoot that many shots over a 6 hour period, > > (that is almost 3 > > photos per minute continuously for the whole 6 hours!), > > there is no way that > > I would be able to put the energy and thought into each > > shot as i should. > > Hmm. I throw out 2/3 of what I shoot, but I wouldn't call them crap. > Most of them are dups, and I pick the best of a set. > > I shot about 10 frames to get these 3: > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/boland/4462.htm > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/boland/4463.htm > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/boland/4464.htm > > Are the other 7 frames crap? Well, some of them were, but most of them > were just "also-rans". I got to pic the best 3 out 10. > > Made a nice triptych in her album. > > > I > > always tell my clients that it is "quality not quantity" > > that they should be > > after - ie there is no use having 600 mediocre shots that > > no-one will ever > > look at, when they could have 150 sensational, emotional, > > memorable shots > > for them to cherish, and that they will want to look at > > over and over. > > Sorry, totally sounds like selling jargon there, but I > > still think it is > > true... Of course, when I get my hands on a digital slr, > > that philosophy > > could very well change! ;-) > > Sure. 300 sensational shots are better than 150 sensational shots. > > tv > >
