fotoman150

https://www.barclayvilla.com/

Getting ready shots are 8am. Sparkler exit is at 11:30 pm.

This is one of the better venues I have shot. The landscaping is so nice. The interior is very ornate.

This is a big wedding with 8 BM and GM and two flower girls and one RB. Never seen two flower girls before. The bride has a 15 ft. veil. Should I do the obligatory shot of the groom holding the veil outdoors?

When I scouted it out today the lighting was very dark. Maybe they didn't have all the lights on. I should have explored a little further. I'd like to know how they got so much light in the indoor pics.

I want to duplicate the shot of the bride on the steps. It looks like there is strobe or a speedlite to the left shooting across to show texture in the gown

I have an off camera speedlite with a 16in. soft box on a monopod. Take a look at the gallery and give me your thoughts. Any advice would be appreciated.

We're shooting Canon 5d Mark II and III. I have one other photographer. Each of us has two camera bodies. There is also the videographer whom I've not met.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Maybe you should ask this in the Wedding Photography forum section: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-118-1.html

SonyBug

Not to throw water on your parade, but if you are asking what I think are basic questions, and have contracted to shoot a really big expensive wedding, maybe you should'nt... Just my opinion.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Or perhaps if you have any knowledge about his concerns you could offer him some advice...Just my opinion.

SonyBug

The point is - If you don't have basic skills for a pro job, a paragraph here won't do any good. The OP should get those skills first, then contract for a job that is a "once in the moment" kind of photo shoot. Hopefully the second photographer will have more and better experience so the "moment" is not lost and the wedding party has the photographic memories they wanted. I have done hundreds of portraits, and one or two simple weddings, and I have come to the conclusion that "on the job training" is not possible when you are the primary shooter. This is the kind of situation that the photographer should bring vast experience to in order to give clients what they pay for. Also, the primary photographer should be the coordinator with the videographer for shooting. Just think of the video interspersed with flash from two other shooters... Hmmm, I would not like that at my wedding...

I was trying not to be too negative, but a fancy wedding that is conducted at a fancy venue deserves the best experienced photographer possible.

grandpaw

I don't want to get in an argument with anyone but I have to agree with Nikonbug on this one. Shooting a BIG EXPENSIVE wedding in a very fancy venue and waiting to a couple of days before hand to even be asking how do I do this just doesn't seem to be very professional. Accepting this type of job and not going in with all the experience needed to get it done just doesn't come across as a wise idea. You can have all the equipment needed and not have the skills or knowledge to do the job and could result in a disaster. I would think with this big a wedding and in this nice of location the expectations are going to be very high. I wish the best for you and hope everything goes well. Remember, "Success is where preparation meets opportunity".

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

After hearing of a failure (and lawsuit) of a wedding shoot by an area photog, and my own trepidation and anxiety with weddings and concerns (back in my film days) I slowly back-peddled out of that venue. Fortunately at about the same time I hooked up with a large law firm in our town and did a lot of legal stuff (accident site and wounds suffered, spousal beatings, slip and fall stuff, you name it, if someone got hurt I'd be there asap for the photo record). It was interesting, sometime heart wrenching, and quite demanding, but never gave me the willies like I'd get doing a wedding!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Setting aside if you should or should not have taken the shoot in the first place, is it possible that behind the couple hidden by the dress is a bounced flash to highlight the dress and couple and a high diffused flash behind and to the left of the camera. I am not a wedding shooter but that would be my guess looking at the image.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I can easily see why this would be a Mecca for someone getting married. I can also see where, if a photographer isn't cognizant, the surroundings can overpower the couple getting married. For example, the couple at the top of the stairs barely caught my attention, as I was looking at the ornate surroundings prior to noticing them.
--Bob

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I have to assume that the family has seen the OP’s portfolio and was satisfied with what they saw. I think the op will be fine.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Re: Lawsuit; Back in the "olden days" when I shot weddings, the PPA (Professional Photographers of America) offered as an adjunct to membership reasonably priced insurance which provided enough compensation to re-shoot at least the highlights of a wedding. Compared to the several thousand bucks worth of gear required, membership in PPA seemed an inexpensive way to protect oneself. Kind of like backup cameras and lights, "just in case."
I'm no longer a weekend warrior (thank God) nor a PPA member, but I'm sure a modernized version of the same benefits are available. Good to look into if OP is considering doing this a good bit.

I also want to point out that merely providing sharp, properly exposed photos will probably not satisfy people who have planned a lavish wedding. He needs to consider posing. Learn to show the bride, groom and their parents in the best possible way. Also, if he wishes to book more of the same type events, he should make the bridal party (at least the fems) look really good as well. Learn to hide those bulges, double chins and unbecoming dresses chosen by the bride and her mother to complement their taste without much regard for the usually varied figure types of the bridesmaids.

My daughter-in-law, a beautiful girl, has several dresses selected by sorority sisters for their bridesmaids which she will never wear again because they make even her look poorly dressed. Things to think about.

grandpaw

I certainly wish him the best and that he gets some outstanding pictures. The op to me just seems like he is not as prepared for this assignment as I would like someone to be if I had gone through this much trouble and expense. Again wishing him the best and I looking forward to seeing some pictures from the wedding. Grandpaw

Smudgey Loc: Ohio, Calif, Now Arizona

Wow, looks like high dollar to me, wonder what they are spending on this shindig. good luck on the shoot.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Whatever it is, I could probably live on for the majority of a year on that money.
--Bob

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

I'm not a wedding photog and have only a couple of softboxes, but even I know that a relatively tiny softbox with a shoe mount flash ain't going to do much to light up spaces of the size involved. Of COURSE some of the spectacular images displayed on the web site used extra lights, but it was more than one and they used bigger than 16 inch modifiers. They probably came with at least one if not more light wranglers, too - is the second photog mentioned in the OP going to do the light setup?

There may be facts we don't have, but based on what we DO know, I'm with the others who fear that this is likely to lead to major disappointments for all but the outdoor daylight shots. (There's a chance that even the girls on the edge of the pool needed some extra light, as the sun was behind 'em - if so, would a single speedlight be enough?)

Just some things I'm wondering out loud, while I remind myself why I never wanted to be a wedding photog. (Although I HAVE agreed on a few occasions to do no-flash candids for the couple, leaving the pro(s) to do the heavy lifting, always discussing it with the pros beforehand, then doing what they asked me to do (or not do) so as not to interfere with them.)