(Untitled)

Nov 19, 2012 19:58

I need help, I am having such a hard time picking a photographer. I just don't know editing and photography wise who is worth the money ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 22

pami November 20 2012, 01:26:57 UTC
1 - Finn. She's the bitch one? Honestly? I don't like her work. In some, I can tell she used the flash because there's shiny spots on the faces. The skin tones are off in a few, and the photos lack depth. She would be awesome if she learned what a white balance is and how to turn up the blacks/contrast to get some depth. I'm just not a fan.

2. Stephanie - Hers are nice, except they are a little flat as well, well at least for my taste, haha. I think hers are better than Finn's, but I'm still not a huge fan.

3. Modern Belle - Her pictures are kinda amazing. I can't find her prices, though... so IDK.

4. Holly - Her photos are pretty perfect, too.

5. Danielle - Hers are pretty good.

If it were me, I'd go with modern Belle or Holly OH! They're my favorites!

Reply

pami November 20 2012, 02:56:40 UTC
And, to update on your ETA Erin has good pictures, not awful but OMG amazing, IMO... but her prices are pretty cheap. Definitely worth the cost!!!

Reply

_tyke November 21 2012, 04:48:17 UTC
Thanks :D:D

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

_tyke November 21 2012, 04:48:48 UTC
Thanks!

Reply


sxylilwitch November 20 2012, 01:41:16 UTC
Took one look at bitch photographer's site and hated it. That pic she has on the front page of her site was awful enough, I didn't bother looking at more :P

I like Stephanie's the best I think, but Modern Belle and Holly are pretty close. Just don't do the foot picture like Modern Belle's :P Who wants a pic of dirty feet hanging in their house?

Expensive lady has great pics, but I don't think its worth the extra money. Hers are pretty comparable with the other 3.

Reply

sxylilwitch November 20 2012, 01:48:38 UTC
I take it back, no to Stephanie :P. Id go for Holly tbh

Reply

_tyke November 21 2012, 04:49:22 UTC
Thanks love!

Reply


faceless_facade November 20 2012, 01:56:28 UTC
1. I agree that her work is flat (that really describes it perfectly, I think). Her prices seem fair to me. It's not horrid quality for that price but considering your previous interaction with her, I'd skip.

2. Again, comparing to what I've paid for professional images, I also think that her session and cd price are fair. I again, also agree with pami- a step up from Finn's.

3. Couldn't find prices and I agree that her photos are more edited than the others thus far. I actually don't completely dislike them. Much better than the others.

4. Love the quality. Seems reasonably priced as well. Best one so far, with one left.

5. Little pricey for the time and location restraints. But 30m (which is the option I would go with, if I was doing it) is actually quite a bit of time in terms of taking photos and that could easily equal up to 200 photos. I always get a disc when we do it so that's the booking I am looking at. It's not horrible. Yup, I find her work is the best though. Absolutely.

Reply

lifethreads November 20 2012, 15:15:56 UTC
200 edited photos in a 30 min session??
When I shoot a 30 min mini, I'll take about 150-175 RAW images, but I only guarantee about 30 edited. I can usually provide 40, maaaybe 50 to the client if the session goes smoothly. I can't even do 200 edited for a full hour! Haha

Reply

faceless_facade November 20 2012, 16:49:15 UTC
I was just sharing what my experience has been. In about 45m, my photographer can give us up to 200 images.

Reply

lifethreads November 20 2012, 17:11:43 UTC
Whoa! Haha. That's just crazy to me. I work quick, but I can't imagine getting 200 unique, workable shots in that amount of time, much less editing them all. Good for her if it works for her, though!

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

_tyke November 21 2012, 04:50:27 UTC
Too bad she is booked apparently and also won't write me back :(

Reply


Leave a comment

Up