Help Me Pick A Photographer!!!!!!!!!!!!

[reena]

okay: i am THE WORST about making decisions. truly. FI is about to murder me. so anyway, we''re trying to pick a wedding photographer and i just cannot decide. we''ve met two that we really really like. i like one guy a tad better than the other, but he is about $1500 more expensive than the other guy and i can''t decide whether it''s worth it. particularly given that even the less expensive guy is really expensive, and more $$$ than we had originally planned on!

photography is really important to me, so on the one hand i think it would be OK to splurge a little here so long as we cut back in other places. but on the other hand, as i said, even the less expensive guy is really a splurge, and i find i keep going OVER my budget for every single little thing i decide on. if i keep this up, we''re going to go broke! so, that''s the dilemma.

i know it can be hard to tell just from looking at pics on the web, but what do you guys think of these two photogs? (I''ll tell you which is which AFTER i get your opinions!

)

http://www.barnettphoto.com/
http://www.ventanaweddings.com/ventana.htm

 

[Kaili]

It''s a toss up, but from a quick glance through the portfolios, I think I like #2 best. There seem to be more options for photographic style and tone. Both look great to me, though.

Go with your gut feeling.

 

[sparklish]

I can''t see the first website as it is does nothing when I press on "enter wedding site," but both look good to me. Maybe you need to ask a few more questions - how many photogs will be there? We are having two, not just a photog and an assistant. Do you get the negatives? Will they only be digital prints? I personally am going for negatives as I think they will last longer - who knows when CD-roms will be defunct? Is an engagement shoot included?

If it really is a toss-up, DO NOT SPEND FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS MORE on an equivalent photographer. That is a heckuva lot of money.

 

[rfath]

Reena -

FWIW, and I know my opinion means nuffin'' to you... I prefer the second photographer. The compositions just seem more interesting and appealing to me. I find myself smiling as I click through that one more than with the first photographer.

That said, did you get a chance to look through entire albums for these photographers? Going in to interview photographers, there were a few that I REALLY liked, but they seemed to only get a few of those *omg* shots per wedding... the rest were bleh and not so impressive, or didn''t really show anyone except the bride and groom (which doesn''t seem so bad... but some people might expect more images of the guests as well). The photographer we fell in love with sat down at her computer with us and opened random albums filled with all of the images that she shot for each wedding. We got to see what she was taking and how much was discarded. Only viewing portfolios can give a slightly misleading view of the photographer''s work, I think...

 

[jorman]

Oh, Reena!
I LOVE

them both. I feel like the second has more of a journalistic style, which is artistic, but I can''t decide if I think that captures the truth of what goes on at a wedding. I thought the first photographer captured more joy and reality and the second sought photographs from a more artistic approach. Wouldn''t it be great if you could have them both there??

I think you have a great photographer in both. $1500 is alot of money. Think of what you could do on your honeymoon with $1500...

Good luck!

Janna

 

[Layne]

While both sites have some amazing pictures my preference is Barnett. I think he offers more of an idea of the happenings of the wedding day and everyone involved. He also does an amazing job of capturing all the little details that every bride puts so much time and effort into perfecting.
However, if you are mainly wanting pictures of you and fi on your wedding day, Ventana may be the way to go. He does a great job of capturing the couples.
Either way I think you will be happy.

 

[elephant]

I think I like barnett better. First of all the website is easier to navigate. But, seriously, I think he captures more of the joy? of the day? I don''t know, I just seem to be responding to his more.

Not to change the subj., but have you all noticed how sullen some of the brides look in these photographs. I hope I don''t look anything but deliriously happy on my wedding day.

 

[icekid]

heh, i really don''t know what you should do!

personally, i was more drawn to number 2. the pictures seemed.. warmer to me? but i had a definite preference for the 2nd though i can''t put my finger on why exactly.

i think rfath''s suggestion is excellent. have you seen an entire wedding by these photographers? not just the best shots? that sounds like a great way to decide!

 

[AsscherGirl]

I have to say I loved the Barnett photos. Although the Ventana (sp?) photos were very beautiful, they didn''t seem real. Barnett seemed to really capture the happiness & joy of the wedding day. I would go with whatever one you liked better regardless of the cost. I think photography is the MOST important aspect of your wedding, since that''s what you''ll be looking at 15 years down the road!

Good luck, both seem like great photographers!

 

[glaucomflecken]

hi reena!

did you say you did meet them in person? I think how you mesh with the photographer is just as impt as their style. I met one guy who had amazing pics, but he actually said HE makes a timeline of the day for US to follow!

too controlling.

I do agree that photography is very important. it is our priority too. My photographer also is about $1500 more for the package we want then some of the others, but to me its worth it because I like her, I like the quality and style of her pics, and the type of album we will get. so in order to stay on budget i have cut back on other things that are less important to me. but like you, also tend to get into that "well its my wedding day and I want this!" and go over my budget but Im trying hard.

Also definitely look at their work in person, you probably have already, and what the package offers for the money; engagement session, unlimited time versus not, albums, negatives etc.

with that said, i preferred the second one!

 

[Rockchick]

#1

I love

his style of photographing. I find those pics more natural looking and more, i don't know, it just seems that you are actually at the wedding, which is a good sign...

He does such a great job on capturing the details of the wedding..

 

[reena]

you guys are THE BEST! thanks so much for all of this input.

so, we have met with both photographers in person. personality-wise, we like both very much and i can tell we would have a great time working with either one. work-wise, i''ve seen several wedding albums by each and they''re fabulous.

now, all things being equal, i like paul a little more--both personality-wise and work-wise. but, all things are not equal: paul is the more expensive of the two. so now i guess im trying to figure out if i like him that much more than john so as to make it worth the extra money. FI (being a typical male) is like, this is simple, we like them both about the same and john is cheaper, so john wins. lol. but, i dont know, sometimes i get things in my head and i can''t let them go! so this is tough for me. as i said, i''ve gone over my budget on every single thing thus far, which is making it hard for us--and it would be nice to feel like we made the responsible choice this time. but, im not good at making responsible choices! it''s not fun! in any event i have to decide by tuesday, because paul just called to tell me that another couple has called him inquiring about our wedding date.

as far as the packages the two offer, with both we would be getting 6 hours of photography by john or paul plus a second photog, an album (the two are pretty comparable), online proofing, etc. paul''s pagkage, which is $1600 more expensive, also includes about 400 printed proofs and a parent album (although we don''t really want the parent album, so much). john''s doesn''t include those things, but does include a DVD with all of the proofs (but i dont think you can make prints off of it).

the other big difference is that john -- who shoots all digital -- offers you the option to buy a DVD with all of the high res images on it, so you can pretty much take that and make as many prints for yourself, friends, fam, etc. that you want. (it''s kinda expensive, but at least it''s an option.) with paul, who shoots all film, you can''t do that -- so if you want prints you have to buy them through him. (he does offer the option for you to get the negatives a few years down the road.) i guess this is pretty typical of film photographers.

ahh, sorry to be long-winded. anyway, any other input is appreciated! thanks!

 

[Layne]

You didn''t mention about the film vs. digital before!
If it were my choice I would go for the cheaper (John?) 1), he is digital so you can have things retouched, which is a godsend when that one piece of hair is out of place in every great picture. You can not beat being about to buy a dvd of your wedding pictures! A dvd insures alot for you 2)your pics will never be lost because you can save them on the dvd and your hard drive. 3) you can print them off yourself (make sure you get the written consent with this package) which will save you $$$.
Really, when it comes down to it the photos you are going to be displaying and giving to your parents are going to be of you and your husband. John does a great job with those shots. You may not get as many pictures of candid guest interactions but I do think you will get what you want.

 

[curlygirl]

Oh, this is a tough one. I think the second set of photos (John''s) are impossibly beautiful!! But the first ones are just as gorgeous, only they seem more real for some reason. Ultimately, I think you have to decide how you feel about film vs. digital and how you personally feel about working with either one of these guys.

Digital is obviously less expensive and you have more freedom to do what you want to do in terms of making prints, etc. But some people (myself included, I''m pretty old school) like the look or the idea of film more--it really comes down to personal preference. It''s a tough call and I feel your pain as I actually am in this process myself! Is there any room for negotiation?! If you love Paul more, maybe you can get him to knock a few things off like the parent album and maybe he can give you 300 proofs instead of 400? Also, just so you know, if you do end up buying the negatives from him, you can put them on a disc yourself and then make as many prints as you want. I know you said he doesn''t offer this service until a few years down the road but it''s something to keep in mind.

Keep us posted on what you decide. Whatever your choice is, it will be the right one.

 

[MelissaSue]

ooh ooh.. I can''t pick. I love them both and they are both SOOO much better than any of the photographers I could ever dream of affording. However, one of those Barnett photos (the one of the little blonde toddler crouching down in his little knickers and bow tie) is one of my all-time favorite pics. I ripped it out of a magazine and its in my wedding organizer because its SOOOO freaking cute. I always lean toward photographers who take cute pics of kids. lol. Honestly, they are both very very similar. I think its a matter of you MEETING with them, seeing which one you feel more comfortable with. Thats a very important aspect for a photgrapher.

 

[onedrop]

Hi Reena:

I like Barnett''s as well. I just like the realness of the images (as everyone has said before). The second vendor''s images are very artsy, and imaginative, but Barnett seems to show the bride/groom/bridal party/guests in a better light.

I read that you already talked to both photographers. Did you get a feel for how "intrusive" they would be? By that I mean are they going to interrupt you as you walk down the aisle so they can get the "perfect" picture? Are they going to constantly interrupt you during your reception to do posed pics? I ask because I have many friends who did not want the "intrusive" photographer during the ceremony/reception. They just wanted to enjoy the day. In fact one friend said specifically to the photographer "I don''t want to see you." I did not understand it at the time, but since I have been to many wedding since, I realize how important the non-intrusiveness can be.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I thought it''s something you should consider.

 

[Kaili]

Hi Reena!

Let me preface this with the statement that I do not know anything about wedding photography at all. I do, however, deal with thousands of photos for my actors. There is always a debate between digital and film.

According to some, film is warmer than digital. It is kind of like the difference between a film shown on TV vs. a sitcom on TV. Digital is more crisp and therefore shows more flaws. Digital can be tweaked to look more like film.

Digital is much easier to retouch, although you can have film photos retouched. They used to "paint" a master copy of the photo and then reproduce that. Now, they scan the photo into the computer and retouch in photoshop and then reproduce it. With digital, they just retouch the original file, so there isn't as much degradation. You also have more leeway to adjust contrast, brightness, and colors in digital than you do with film.

In terms of printed proofs vs. a printed proof sheet of small photos or looking on a computer. I go for printed 4x6 (or larger) proofs every time. Computer monitors do not often have the resolution to show you exactly what the photo will look like and the color schemes are not aways accurate depending on how the colors on the monitor are displayed. With my actors, I usually look at all 400 or so photos from their photo shoot on the computer, narrow it down, and then have them print up a few 4x6's from which to make the final decision. Also, FYI, printing up those 4x6's is very expensive, so you may be getting a break if he is doing it vs. you doing it yourself. You might want to research duplication charges. I know that it is cheaper to do several of one shot, but can be as much as $3.00 for a single 4x6. That adds up quickly.

I would ask both photographers what the resolution of their photos on the DVD is and if they have any kind of mark (like a watermark or otherwise) on those photos. The higher the res, as I'm sure you know, the better the quality and you have more size options for your prints- 5x7, 8x10, etc.

Regarding negatives. Film negatives do degrade over time, but I think that you can have them scanned into a computer to save their integrity. You'd have to look into it as I don't know specifics.

Please let us know what you decide.

 

[reena]

thanks guys!!!

kaili, wow--you know a ton about photography! very helpful! so the thing is about paul, the film photographer: since you can''t buy the negatives until down the road, you have to buy all the prints thru him, and they are tres expensive. as in, $30 for a 4x5. (!?!) so, the definite benefit of john is that for $700, you can buy the hi res files from him (not stamped or marred in any way) and print whatever you want for much, much less. however, john gives you no printed proofs, whereas with paul i get 400 or so.

basically, im sure that paul will end up being the most expensive option by a rather substantial margin, which is why im trying to talk myself out of it!

 

[Blue824]

Date: 6/30/2005 12:27:57 PM
Author: Kaili

Also, FYI, printing up those 4x6''s is very expensive, so you may be getting a break if he is doing it vs. you doing it yourself. You might want to research duplication charges. I know that it is cheaper to do several of one shot, but can be as much as $3.00 for a single 4x6. That adds up quickly.

Regarding negatives. Film negatives do degrade over time, but I think that you can have them scanned into a computer to save their integrity. You''d have to look into it as I don''t know specifics.

Just in response to these two comments above....when I print out 4x6 its only like 30 cents, so that would be a significant savings, and it is at like wolf or ritz camera. When your photos are on the CD it is much easier that way, allows you lots of flexibility. The cost of the CD will be substantially less than what you''d pay to order individual prints from the other photographer. As for scanning negatives...it is a slow & expensive process...well, slow for me because I don''t have the money to do all of mine upfront. I used to love working in the dark room, I just have not in years and I know I"m not taking care of my negatives how they should be cared for. IF I had the choice for my wedding I''d skip that step. You can even burn yourself a second copy of the disc and keep it somewhere safe just in case of an accident...where as once a negative is lost, it is lost forever.

Originally before I knew that one was digital and the other was film I really couldnt decide. I think both photographers are extremely talented and you''ll have some fabulous shots no matter who you decide with. When I was looking at both I was just like jeez, if its a $1500 difference and they''re both so great, I''d just go with the cheaper one. Maybe if there are some elements of photos you like from the other photographer you can talk to the one you choose about shots you''d definitely like to have taken.

 

[reena]

this is all true, i know. having the digital files would be great and save ourselves and our families a lot of $$$. and i know both would do a fabulous job. it''s just that my gut is saying, go with paul . . .

anyway i just emailed paul to see if i could switch the parent album in his package for an extra hour of photography at the wedding. (wicked, wicked daughter that i am!) he said absolutely. so, now the extra $1500 is really getting us something useful: another hour of photography (total of 7) in addition to printed proofs. im thinking maybe i can live with this . . .

now i have to convince FI!

 

[codex57]

Being male, i agree with your FI. Go with the cheaper one.

They're close enough to me. I like #1's shot's better in general. Just a bit more pop to it. #2 has nicer scenery shots, but much more subdued and subtle. However, #1 cuts off everyone's heads. Most of his pics cut off the top of the shot. That bothers me.

Are they both in San Diego? Cuz if you willing to include the LA area, I think our photographer is a good blend of skill and value. Harvard Photography. I think they're located in Santa Fe Springs, CA. http://www.harvardphotography.com/

You get proofs, the DVD slideshow they make with your pics only costs $100-250 depending on the length (and they don't care if you make copies). Best thing is they put up a webpage with all the shots. That way, if your guests want reprints, they can order it directly from the photog and the photog will mail it directly to them. You just have to let people know the website and your password. no more dealing with requests for repints!

 

[Blue824]

Date: 6/30/2005 1:49:09 PM
Author: reena
this is all true, i know. having the digital files would be great and save ourselves and our families a lot of $$$. and i know both would do a fabulous job. it''s just that my gut is saying, go with paul . . .

anyway i just emailed paul to see if i could switch the parent album in his package for an extra hour of photography at the wedding. (wicked, wicked daughter that i am!) he said absolutely. so, now the extra $1500 is really getting us something useful: another hour of photography (total of 7) in addition to printed proofs. im thinking maybe i can live with this . . .

now i have to convince FI!

If your gut is saying it, I''d go with it. Sometimes you have to suck it up and just do it! Its your wedding and if you really have a feeling about this guy, I''d follow it. You only do it once

 

[flopkins]

I like Barnett''s photos better. They capture the feeling of the people in them. The ventana photos are gorgeous too. but they seem more aloof, if you know what I mean. but the price difference, and the fact that barnett does film and doesn''t give you the negatives until years later, that kinda sucks.

But in the end, you need to go w/your gut. Sounds like you''ve already decided anyhow! hehe. I would ask if you can get the negatives earlier.

If it makes you feel any better, FI and I have just about doubled our original wedding budget!! wheeee!

 

[Kaili]

Date: 6/30/2005 1:10:24 PM
Author: Blue824

Date: 6/30/2005 12:27:57 PM
Author: Kaili

Also, FYI, printing up those 4x6''s is very expensive, so you may be getting a break if he is doing it vs. you doing it yourself. You might want to research duplication charges. I know that it is cheaper to do several of one shot, but can be as much as $3.00 for a single 4x6. That adds up quickly.

Regarding negatives. Film negatives do degrade over time, but I think that you can have them scanned into a computer to save their integrity. You''d have to look into it as I don''t know specifics.

Just in response to these two comments above....when I print out 4x6 its only like 30 cents, so that would be a significant savings, and it is at like wolf or ritz camera. When your photos are on the CD it is much easier that way, allows you lots of flexibility. The cost of the CD will be substantially less than what you''d pay to order individual prints from the other photographer. As for scanning negatives...it is a slow & expensive process...well, slow for me because I don''t have the money to do all of mine upfront. I used to love working in the dark room, I just have not in years and I know I''m not taking care of my negatives how they should be cared for. IF I had the choice for my wedding I''d skip that step. You can even burn yourself a second copy of the disc and keep it somewhere safe just in case of an accident...where as once a negative is lost, it is lost forever.

Originally before I knew that one was digital and the other was film I really couldnt decide. I think both photographers are extremely talented and you''ll have some fabulous shots no matter who you decide with. When I was looking at both I was just like jeez, if its a $1500 difference and they''re both so great, I''d just go with the cheaper one. Maybe if there are some elements of photos you like from the other photographer you can talk to the one you choose about shots you''d definitely like to have taken.

Awesome input Blue! In terms of the price quote on 4x6, I was just going by the developing labs like Isgo Lepejian, Nardulli, etc that my actors use for their pics. I don''t know anything about photography and developing. Maybe they are just getting ripped off because there are so many actors who go to these places based on recommendations from their photographers or because their photographers work exclusively with one lab. OR maybe it is because they are getting a product that is set up to duplicate or do lithos from??? I don''t honestly know.

Reena, I think you are looking at the situation in a great way. Investigate how much it''s going to cost you on the back end to acheive your final result and add it all up- reproductions, enlargements, retouching, albums, etc.

AND Yah, I agree... go with your gut.

 

[reena]

Date: 6/30/2005 4:04:24 PM
Author: flopkins
Sounds like you''ve already decided anyhow! hehe.

sigh, aint that the truth. you guys know me well!

 

[Rube]

Date: 6/30/2005 12:27:57 PM
Author: Kaili

Regarding negatives. Film negatives do degrade over time, but I think that you can have them scanned into a computer to save their integrity. You''d have to look into it as I don''t know specifics.

Here''s what I can add: scanning negatives is a very time consuming and expensive project, especially considering how many you will end up with after your wedding!

I scan a good many slides at work (on a high end scanner) and I can tell you there is still a small margin of error, i.e. dust and specific color adjustment, which are not always easy to control without shelling out a lot of $$$. So, you can work that into your equation too, Reena!

 

[moremoremore]

Oooohhhh, tough call. #1 has some great shots. Also, all the people they show are "beautiful" so it''s a lot easier to get sucked in. #2 has some great shots. Look like shots for a magazine. Very cool. The shots seemed so interesting to me. !!!
That said, my gutt tells me #1.

Who did you pick?

 

[jorman]

yeah, Reena- who did you pick?
I am guessing Paul????

 

[reena]

sigh, haven''t picked yet. i have until tuesday. my gut is telling me paul (even though i know that john would do a fabulous job). paul''s been doing this for years and years and is acclaimed for his wedding photography around these parts, which inspires a lot of confidence . . . plus i just really like him as a person. i just need to convince FI now.

given the modifications paul has told me i can make to his package, the comparison now is basically this:

John for $X = 7 hours of photography, album, slide show, DVD with proofs, high res DVD with all of our pics scanned on so we can make prints.

Paul for $x + $500 = 7 hours of photography, album, slide show, 400 printed proofs. (No negatives or DVD from which to make prints, meaning we''d have to go through him for any prints that we want, other than the proofs.)

ahhhh! going crazy here.

 

[moremoremore]

who the hell is paul LOL...don''t make my read the whole thread