livestrong

Such I shame I've flown back home by then Daryl. I could have returned the favour.

Something the OP may be interested in looking at https://www.wedpics.com/

Not really as the website would be part of the signature if they were. FWIW one of the brands sounds like a giant gun... think BFG (Doom)... nuff said

Top of Mount Everest on a clear day, a Phase One 645DF with an IQ180 digital back, 150mm AF F2.8 and a Gigapan Epic Pro. To create one huge stitched image.

Suggest you have a read... Changing perspective in post is destructive and loses image quality. Changing the focal plane in post CANNOT be done. The wedding photo example could not have been done in post as if you look behind the couple the background is still in focus because the focal plane was shifted. It is used a fair bit by some wedding photographers to isolate subjects and focus the viewers attention on a particular area of the picture. Like with the example links I posted those shots cannot be achieved without the use of the shifting of the focal plane. The use of a tilt shift in that photo has done a DIFFERENT job on the wedding photo. Tilt shift lenses are not for everyone but they have capabilities which other lenses don't have. They can do things other lenses can't and which cannot be done in post. One other reason for the higher cost of the lenses is they are amazingly sharp with some of the best image quality performance of the lenses out there.

Not a gimmick at all. Changing the focal plane is a very useful tool as it being able to control converging vertical/horizontals. Clayton Austin uses them very well a lot. Also check out Bobby Earle This is shot with a tilt shift

If you are stitching using around the 50mm focal length is ideal as you then don't have as big a problem with parallax when the images are stitched. Stitching will work in a small environment.

Processing hasn't been raised by any of the people in this thread so far. Exposure, composition, sharpness/focus have though

Not really as they haven't been used well. Plain and simply the shots are distinctly ordinary. Whatever you were trying to achieve with each picture didn't work. Nubile's shot from his/her phone is considerably more interesting. Furthermore a quick crop removing some of the RHS and bottom of the photo makes is quite pleasing to the eye (for a phone pic). You asked for CC... you are getting CC.

2nd shot... missed focus, shutter speed too slow (hence the awkward blur/lack of crispness), crop could be tighter which would help with the composition (this would most likely have to be done in post though as you'd most likely be tracking the subject in AF servo mode keeping the owl in the centre of the frame).

Comments are honest. The photos aren't very good. The subject matter is dull, they are poorly composed, under exposed... the list goes on. Sorry shirleyF but your advertise to be a pro and then post these? Come on please. Those pics might as well have been taken by a five year old with a point and shoot. There isn't really anything constructive to say except for both shots are delete worthy.

1st one not even average. 2nd one same as the first. If they are the best you have taken each week I'd be worried.

Very true. A bad dj can kill a reception and a good one can make it. Being at weddings a lot I have seen both happen. As for whether all guests want a dj well that depends on your type of guest and the nature of the wedding etc. But it isn't about the guests... what do you as a couple want.

There is nothing harsh in giving an honest realistic appraisal.

Making an income... not likely at the moment, quite a way off. Your pics aren't bad but they are not much more than average at the moment. Aside from changing you viewpoint when taking some of them there isn't much a normal person couldn't get with a point and shoot on auto. Composition is slightly out on quite a few which is off putting. Also work on getting your horizons horizontal. Unique eye... not really. Landscapes very special... again not really. Keep it as a hobby and keep practising.

All snapshots... with the exception of 2 which is a nice try but poorly composed.

It is so much more fun here in Oz. You can get married pretty much anywhere which means my job is a lot more fun as I have new locations all the time.

Most of the professional organisations out there don't require diplomas or training for accreditation... Many require a membership fee and assess a portfolio. That is it. So what if someone is accredited that way? It doesn't change what their work looks like... they are either good or not irrespective of accreditation. There are accredited people who are crap and those who are good, in the same way that there are non accredited people who are crap and those who are good. It is the end product that someone delivers that counts!

Why would you avoid someone who may be perfectly good if they are associated with a professional organisation? That is the biggest load of crap I've heard in a while. As has already been said... check out the photographer's work from multiple weddings (all the way through each wedding). You need to know that someone can consistently deliver. Business Facebook pages as great for seeing what clients have said. Training means NOTHING (I have non). What someone can produce is what counts.

So long as they sort the AF out on the 5D MKIII I'll be happy. It sucks on the 5D MKII Thanks

It is never to early to book... venues will book out long in advance as do many photographers (I book out about a year in advance). Popular venues take bookings regularly well over a year in advance.

I'll be tossing up between getting a couple of 1Dx's or a couple 5D MKIII's when they finally arrive...

A macro lens... and in this case a very steady hand. Still not quite there with this one.

The OP has gone rather quiet.

Thanks Actually I'm after the 24L and a tilt and shift when I decide on which focal length would be best suited to my style. I've heard good reports about the 70-200 IS F2.8 L MKII being super sharp, saying that the MKI is very good and with a 24-70 IS MKII around the corner that may be another upgrade. I think the only lens I didn't use at yesterday's wedding was the 24-70 which is always in the bag. I could shoot an entire wedding with just that lens if I had to.