Jump to content


Photo

Groom's preparation


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#31 mrsm00kz

mrsm00kz

    supercalafreakinawesome

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,196 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 09:02 PM

Actually you're right chrisby, this was offered in the top package but the others were offered as optional extras.

I'm getting the 2nd top package and paying $4500 for it and this doesn't include grooms prep, bit annoyed about that but what can you do. I guess it's just another incentive to get to you go for the top package although the price difference is $1000 rolleyes.gif
<center><a href="http://www.thebump.c...mpaign=tickers" title="Ovulation Calculator"><img src="http://global.thebum...s/tt7e959.aspx" alt=" Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker" border="0" /></a></center>

#32 emeraldeye

emeraldeye

    Newbie

  • New User
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 09:17 PM

QUOTE (Dondons_28 @ Mar 16 2006, 04:44 PM)
i see your point Christian, but when ive been invovled in so many weddings, and seing the video guys go from place to place, without a problem

i just fail to see that if a video guy can do this, why cant the photographer?

As for editing, its a different ballgame IMO and most photographers dont retouch their photos anyway... not from what ive seen....

Maybe im missing something??

We retouch nearly every photograph (just did a wedding on Friday that we came back with 2000 images - 12 hours - brides getting ready, groom getting ready, ceremony, on location and full reception). It takes days, litterally, but I includ it as part of our offering as I believe in presenting the couple with the best possible shots. We turn about half into black and white, some have a colour treatment that makes them "more romantic" etc etc. So yes you are missing something... A lot of photographers DO touch up their images, and it takes FOREVER! Trust me!

Also we are a husband and wife team that do both the bride and groom getting ready (husband does groom, I do bride) and we have found this is fantastic! It gives the couple both sides of the story and also gives both the bride and groom a better chance to get comfortable with us as photographers and having their photos taken.

#33 Busterella

Busterella

    Oliver's Mummy

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,501 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 09:31 PM

QUOTE (chrisby @ Mar 16 2006, 09:54 PM)

Couples always love the getting ready shots, and ineveitably have a good laugh when they see what their other halves got up to. biggrin.gif

Exactly. So true. I loved seeing my hubby get prepared. his photos were better then mine.
<center>

<a href="http://lilypie.com/"><img src="http://lbdf.lilypie.com/QNW6p11.png" width="400" height="80" border="0" alt="Lilypie Pregnancy tickers" /></a>



OUR WEDDING PHOTOS - JUST CLICK ON THE PHOTO AND VIEW AS A SLIDESHOW</center>

#34 Christian

Christian

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 09:50 PM

QUOTE (Dondons_28 @ Mar 16 2006, 04:44 PM)
i see your point Christian, but when ive been invovled in so many weddings, and seing the video guys go from place to place, without a problem

i just fail to see that if a video guy can do this, why cant the photographer?

As for editing, its a different ballgame IMO and most photographers dont retouch their photos anyway... not from what ive seen....

Maybe im missing something??

Hey if the video guys want to short-change themselves that's up to them. wink.gif But as Chris said, I see a pro video guy at 20% of weddings at best (overwhelmingly European weddings, which to be honest isn't really my market so those figures may be skewed), so I hear it can be like a bunch of seagulls fighting over a chip out there for the video guys. sad.gif

It's all to do with marketing. Do you really think that the video guy who says he includes coverage from the groom's home as standard isn't allowing for this in his quote?

Which quote is cheaper? The package from the Groom's home that's $2,000 or the package that starts at the Bride's home for $1,800, plus $200 extra for the Groom.

As much as we love doing weddings, we'd rather be with our families given the choice if we're not being paid. Pay by the hour works in every other industry I know (most probably you get paid by the hour for your job Dondon) - sounds pretty fair to me.

BTW; chalk another one up for editing all images here too...
Christian Wright - Dip Phot
Baulkham Hills, NSW

#35 Dondons_28

Dondons_28

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:22 PM

QUOTE (chrisby @ Mar 16 2006, 08:30 PM)
Hmm, I'd say you are missing a good photographer then rolleyes.gif
Most photographer, who shoot digitally can spend up to 30hours working on the images, from downloading to retouching etc.

The proofs is a different story, they will usually receive only basic colour corrections etc, even that takes time. As does converting to B&W etc.

well from the people ive seen so far, theyre charging for any digital "retouching"

on top of that, of the 7 weddings ive been to in the last 6 months, they ALL charged xtra for the groom.

Yeah sure i know where youre coming from about packages etc, and maybe the video market is a little more cut throat and desperate than photography, but none of the photographers ive met so far mentioned anything about retouching or "correction"

as for BW, well i dont see how more than 2 minutes is required to click on several tabs to turn a picture into BW in Photoshop. I do this for my own pictures and im not a "pro"

Dont get me wrong, i dont have an issue with photography in general, but to me, in this industry (and seeing it on the other side as im in hospitality) it seems that as soon as u mention wedding, people assume your ready to blow money on almost anything...

#36 Christian

Christian

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:30 PM

QUOTE (Dondons_28 @ Mar 16 2006, 11:22 PM)
as for BW, well i dont see how more than 2 minutes is required to click on several tabs to turn a picture into BW in Photoshop. I do this for my own pictures and im not a "pro"

... potentially the difference between a Monet and my son's finger-painting - but they're both "art". biggrin.gif

There's much more to B&W than simply desaturating an image.
Christian Wright - Dip Phot
Baulkham Hills, NSW

#37 Christian

Christian

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:35 PM

QUOTE (Dondons_28 @ Mar 16 2006, 11:22 PM)
Dont get me wrong, i dont have an issue with photography in general, but to me, in this industry (and seeing it on the other side as im in hospitality) it seems that as soon as u mention wedding, people assume your ready to blow money on almost anything...

My observation of the hospitality industry is similar to your view on the wedding photography industry - $120+ per head for a 3-course meal and drinks for which you'd normally only pay $80 tops; talk about rip-off!. tongue.gif

Perhaps both industries are simply misunderstood. smile.gif
Christian Wright - Dip Phot
Baulkham Hills, NSW

#38 Christian Troy

Christian Troy

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,749 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 07:55 AM

Can film images be retouched? I thought it was only digital? Probably a dumb question

#39 chrisby

chrisby

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 08:45 AM

QUOTE (L&H @ Mar 17 2006, 07:55 AM)
Can film images be retouched? I thought it was only digital? Probably a dumb question

Well yes, of course film images can be retouched, that's what people did before the advent of digital. Altough some work could be done directly to the neg, most retouching was done to the print, such as 'spotting' i.e. painting any dust marks or scratches. I don't miss doing that!
To get sepia effects the prints were washed in a sepia solution. And a lot could be done during the actual enlarging process such as dodging and burning.

I don't miss the smell of toxic fumes in the darkroom blink.gif

And there was always the option to scan the negs and work on those. This wasn't typically done in the domestic market but definitly for all commercial work.



#40 chrisby

chrisby

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 08:51 AM

QUOTE (Dondons_28 @ Mar 16 2006, 11:22 PM)
as for BW, well i dont see how more than 2 minutes is required to click on several tabs to turn a picture into BW in Photoshop. I do this for my own pictures and im not a "pro"

As Christian mentioned, there is a lot more to good B&W than desaturating in Photoshop. This is actually a good indicator of the skill of a digital photographer. Someone inexperiened will usually produce drab B&W's, it's all grey and mush, there is no deep blacks or real whites, the contrast is low, the images lacks 'punch'.

A skilled photographer/retoucher will produce nice punchy B&W's that are contrasty, but still retain details in the shadow areas.
Getting that punch just right takes skill and time as often every image needs to be looked at individually.

Anyway, have a look at some different web sites, and you'll notice drab vs punchy B&W's.
cool.gif

#41 displayname

displayname

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,033 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:28 AM

QUOTE (Christian @ Mar 16 2006, 11:35 PM)
My observation of the hospitality industry is similar to your view on the wedding photography industry - $120+ per head for a 3-course meal and drinks for which you'd normally only pay $80 tops; talk about rip-off!. tongue.gif

Perhaps both industries are simply misunderstood. smile.gif

Sorry to change the topic, but we are getting 3 course meal (dinner) (plus a whole heap of extras) in the heart of Sydney for $80. Yes the wedding industry is a complete rip off in every way, shape and form.. but if you let yourself be ripped off you will be! That's why it pays to shop around ( a lot ) and use your head and not your heart sometimes wink.gif .

#42 Megy

Megy

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 10:59 AM

QUOTE (Christian @ Mar 16 2006, 04:34 PM)
You may find photographers who simply charge by the hour. If your package includes (say) five hours, then you can always have them start at the Bridegroom's house and maybe knock off early from the reception.

Yeah, our photography package is for six hours, so this takes us from the groom's house at the start of the day, to about half an hour into the reception. I've never known a photographer to stay for the whole reception. I think friend's and family happy snaps would be sufficient for this.

Of course, you just need to pose a photo of cutting the cake before the photographer leaves.....

#43 chrisby

chrisby

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 02:16 PM

QUOTE (L&H @ Mar 17 2006, 11:15 AM)
I hate photographers that come on here and are so condescending to poeple who don't know anything about photography.

Doh' how am I being condecending? I answered a question and more, gave an explanation.
I know most people's experience is based on holiday snaps etc, so I am happy to elaborate and answer questions and try to present the photographers view as well, as this may help people understand why we do things the way we do.

People may not always agree with what I say and that's perfectly fine, but to take something I said as condecending is just weird blink.gif

#44 Dondons_28

Dondons_28

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 02:36 PM

QUOTE (L&H @ Mar 17 2006, 11:15 AM)
I hate photographers that come on here and are so condescending to poeple who don't know anything about photography.

well you know whats funny, some of the retouches i do for my friends photos are better than the "official" ones.

Yea I agree, there is a lot more to BW than meets the eye, theres gamma, contrast, luminance, flash level.... hell, theres ALOT that can be done, just coz i do this for fun, doesnt mean im stupid.. but then again, maybe i am stupid working in hospitality... maybe i should go and use my photoshop and zillions of plugins and make some good money..

I dont mean to turn this around, but alot of photographers out there seem to overestimate their own talents and believe that all we "little people" do is deal with "happy snaps"

Look, if a service is to be provided, so be it, we pay for what we get. Its s simple equation, but my whole point is that were making an investment and obviously we want value for money, but we dont want to be told thngs which are misleading in making us believe that a phtographer is doing more than they really are.

Just coz were brides, doesnt mean were "ditzy" This stigma about "ditzy me me me, im a bride, i wanna be a princess " is really driving me up the wall.. i mean how stupid do they think we are?

#45 Christian

Christian

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 03:11 PM

QUOTE (L&H @ Mar 17 2006, 02:27 PM)
"well yes of course" implies an exasperated, condescending tone.


I will let Chris speak for himself but I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it this way.
Christian Wright - Dip Phot
Baulkham Hills, NSW




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users