Photographer/Photojournalist Listing Site

Babycakes SE

Not sure if anyone is interested or is looking for something like this but I found it EXTREMELY useful )

Its a list of some registered wedding photographers and gives a little detail about them and even price ranges.  I'm 99% sure I just found my photographer and its pretty much because I stumbled on this site )

Hope it helps! 

http://www.wpja.com/wedding-photographers/new-jersey-photojournalist.htm

hopefully this is another check off my list (doing that happy dance in my chair) haha

smw42

I used that exact site during our search and found it very helpful.

JessicaLB2

I found my photogrpaher through that site as well.

Peacefield

I looked there.  Though there are certainly very capable photographers on this site, it's membership based so just like an advertising site, you need to take it with a grain of salt.

37 Butter Knives

It's certainly a good place to start. But not every photographer with a photojournalistic style is listed here - WPJA is a professional organization, which collects dues. While membership also requires adherance to standards, some photographers who uphold them aren't members.

By doing further research, I was able to find other photographers - with a photojournalist approach - that are as good or better than many of those listed on that site.

It is a great starting point. Just don't limit yourself to those photographers listed there.

USER876

Holy crap we got married 1.5 yrs ago and I never heard of any of those during our photographer search (and we looked at a bunch).  Seems like everyone is a wedding photographer now a days.  I wonder how long some of these people have been in biz?

uppereastgirl

I agree with 37 Butter Knives.  Great place to start, but not necessarily the only place to look.  I think photographers pay the dues because it is a pretty well-known listing site, and they have tons and tons of contests so it is a good way to rack up lots of awards to brag about (as you can see by the fact that probably at least half of the listed photographers have "won an award" icons next to their names).  But there are a lot of very talented photographers who aren't members (I'd guess in some cases because they don't need those benefits to drum up business).  

Of course, there are a number of good photographers on that list.

Babycakes, who are you looking at?

37 Butter Knives

A former WPJA member explains why he left, and mentions that some of the best wedding photojournalists aren't members: http://www.louispang.com/2009/04/why-i-left-wpja/

Perhaps part of the reason is that the organization is rife with DRAMA? http://www.opensourcephoto.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=18421&mode=threaded&pid=211017

I'm not dismissing WPJA - just pointing out reasons why not every talented photojournalist is on there. Obviously, membership has its privileges, as the link to its NJ directory seems to pop up here often.

But with most every photographer around here practicing (or claiming to practice) photojournalism, you don't need the WPJA directory to tell you who is or isn't a photojournalist. It's far more of a challenge these days to find a traditional wedding photographer.

USER876

I agree about the substandard part.......

Like I have said before, with consumer grade dslr equipment anyone can get started photographing weddings for around 1500 bucks, and then market themselves to death on a website, blog, or facebook.  Sadly,  some clients don't realize the difference a seasoned pro can make (sad for them).   Long term, these people are toast though.  I wonder how many weddings some of these people have actually done?  I also see posts on some photography forums I am on where people starting out hire photoshop wizzards to retouch the pictures for their website portfolio.  So what you really get, doesn't look like that!  Again, some people won't notice this and are just thrilled to get any picture that looks better than what they can do.  Photography business is sadly, only about 10% talent, and 90% business skills.  The average consumer is just not educated enough.......that is changing though.

Until recently, photography studios typically had a traditional, more corporate sounding name.  Now many of the newcomers working out of their home tend to call it "their name" photography including  part timers, newcomers, stay at home moms with nothing to do, the list goes on, etc.  There are some in this catagory that have risen to the top, and kudo's to them,  but this isn't the norm.

Many of these people have had little to no training, but that is the catch22 with photography.  There is really no such thing as a professional photographer.  Photography is not a profession.  There is no training or degree or license or test involved.  Anyone can do it.  Scary huh?

 

37 Butter Knives

Yes, it's so easy for anyone to be a wedding photographer. I've mentioned the friend who used a colleague (who works a 9-5 job - not in photography - but allegedly used to work for catalogs) to shoot her wedding. I'm not a photographer, but the photos were a disaster - poor use of lighting, out of focus, stark, red eyes indoors, posed within an inch of their life (and it shows). But my friend, who is the visual equivalent of tone-deaf, loved her "work," even if the bulk of it was worse than a lot of the point-and-shoot snaps guests took. As long as the bride is happy, I suppose, even though my eyes bleed when I see the pictures.

This "professional" photographer is not WPJA (probably couldn't be if she tried, since she was all about posing people and choreographing moments). I checked, and she doesn't even have a professional business or website. When I Google her name, all the references are to her day job, and not her photography. So thankfully, I don't think other couples have to be worried that they'll end up hiring her. But I'm sure other "photographers" like her put themselves out there.

I do take objection to the suggestion that someone naming their business after themselves, as opposed to choosing a "traditional, more corporate sounding name" is a potential red flag. Almost every photography business seems to carry the owner/chief photographer's name - even those around for years (Phil Cantor comes to mind), and regardless of whether they are working for themselves or have a stable of photographers. I don't think people should pick Your Special Daaaaaaay Studio over Snappy McShooterson Photography because Snappy McShooterson is someone's name.

User, were there times you considered photographing weddings?

USER876

Don't take offense.  I suppose that naming convention is getting more popular, but it is a red flag in my opinion.  Not a red flag to avoid them, but a red flag to ask more questions.  Yes there are accomplished photographers that named their business after themselves, but it seems that all the ones coming out of the woodwork are naming their business that too.  That is all I was trying to say.

As I said before, photography is not a profession, it's a trade.  At least someone that does it full time will invest in  quality equipment because it will pay for itself with improved work, or make their life easier maybe saving time,etc.  The cost of the equipment is trivial compared to their revenue.  Part timers or amateurs tend to jump in at the lowest entry cost they can, using the bare minimum equipment.

That being said there are people who are very accomplished that were self taught and started small.  Emin kuliyev is a popular example.

I am not interested in photographing weddings.  Working a 10 yr day, Firing off 1000 shots, doing global processing edits, and spending hours laying an album out is not my cup of tea.  I would rather produce a single piece of art that requires setup and planning, creative processing,etc, that stands out and looks great blown up to 20x30.

I know photojournalism is the latest craze, but I don't think there is anything wrong with posed shots when done right.  After all most commercial fashion and glamour shoots are shot under very controlled conditions and are posed, but posed in a way that looks more natural (looking away from the camera,etc).

The wedding photographer we used did more posed shots than most, and even "backed us up" into positions if she felt she didn't capture a shot we wanted to have to her satisfaction.  She did it in a fun way, it wasn't annoying,etc.  The result was very natural looking photos.  Posed is ok, it just has to be done right.  That being said, there are some people that don't want to be bothered AT ALL during the wedding, and a  GOOD PJ photographer is a good choice for them.

uppereastgirl

37 Butter Knives, thanks for the links -- I find that very interesting.  I didn't realize that photographers were revolting against the WPJA.  

I have 3 friends who have in the last 3 years quit their day jobs to go into event photography full-time.  One did so about a month ago, has only shot one wedding (for a friend, for free, over a year ago), and doesn't have a website yet.  But her business has 70 Facebook fans, I think because of the request she sent to all of her FB friends to "like" her business.  Wonder if her potential clients realize that although she seems popular, it is mostly high school friends and such (who would "like" her even if they have never seen her work) and not clients are the ones who make her look popular?

I respectfully disagree too about the naming conventions.  I mean, Celebrations Studio didn't turn out too well, and then you have the huge soulless (and not so great) studios like The Pros and Photovideo Network and Bella that aren't really recommended.  Many of the leaders of the industry have eponymous studios (Denis Regie, Jose Villa, Christian Oth (sorry to AW my photographer), Elizabeth Messina, Brian Dorsey, Fred Marcus, Joe Buissinck, Jessica Claire -- all eponymous.  Most of the people who have made the American Photo top 10 lists and are named in other "best of the industry" articles are).

USER876

You guys are missing the point.  Of course there are top photographers out there that named their business after themself.....but those people  are well known, have been around for a while, and have a large web presence.....forum reviews,etc.  I am talking about the newcomers that you never heard of, and that internet searches don't turn up a lot on.......and most of them are also called "their name" photography....and there are many more of them out there to weed through than the top 10 pro's.

uppereastgirl

I guess my feeling on that is that okay, so maybe 90% of the new guys are named Firstname Lastname Photography, but 80% of all wedding photographers -- nationally-reknowned, new, good, bad, and ugly -- are named Firstname Lastname Photography.  So I don't think that's telling enough to be super helpful to people.  

I think that there are other things that are more telling.  Having an email address that is firstnamelastname@gmail.com (as opposed to info@firstnamelastnamephotography.com), for example.  Meeting people in coffee shops because you don't have an office. Having a website with only a few wedding galleries but also a decent number of portrait sessions, parties, etc. (things that you can do very cheaply for friends to build up your portfolio because you're inexperienced).  Any indications that a lot of the featured weddings were shot as a second shooter rather than the primary photographer.  Galleries that don't go back that far.  Not offering prints and albums.  A price that is too good to be fair for an experienced photographer.  

But on the other hand, everyone's got to start somewhere and some new people are very talented.  And there are tons of people who have been around forever who aren't good (or who are decent but tremendously overrated).  And as Butter Knives pointed out, some people are perfectly happy with their photos as long as they're better than what they could have done themselves. 

I almost fell out of my chair this morning btw when I saw that the Today Show wedding was being photographed by "Denis Reggie for Bella Pictures."   Those are two names I would never expect to hear in the same sentence...

Babycakes SE

oh geez, i just popped back on to see what was going on with my post haha.  I really just meant this as a starting point because the photographer excel sheet that was floating around didn't help me much.

I appreciate everyone's opinion, but just meant it to help- there are hundreds of photographers out there that are better and or worse and infact the photographer that I chose wasn't even on here )  but it did help me to select a style and what I did and did not like.

I went with Heather James Photography-  She hasn't done wedding photography yet -yes, i hear the gasps coming from most of you ;op haha but that is a personal risk that I'm willing to take.  We did our engagement pictures through her and I couldn't imagine having anyone else doing our wedding!!  She is going to be training and getting help from other photographers to prepare for our wedding (working on lighting and more action shots) so I'm fully ready for her to do this.  It also helps that we are old college friends-  once again, fully aware of the risks, but I would regret it even more if we didn't do it.  And plus it makes our photos one of a kind -woo hoo!

... my mini update went on longer than i wanted to! haha sorry!

uppereastgirl

I'll admit that I'm gasping, mostly because taking pretty portraits is very different from having everything sorted out to make sure you don't miss the first kiss or the groom's reaction to the bride walking down the aisle or whatever.  But your engagement photos do look very nice.

But at the very least, she isn't a member of WPJA, right?  They at least make sure that their members have actually shot weddings before?

USER876

If she is a decent photographer she can get by at your wedding, hopefully you will have a second shooter though so you don't miss anything, and she has at LEAST done one wedding before yours so she can get a refresher of the flow of things..  The biggest mistakes an inexperienced wedding photographer makes is missing the shot, either forgetting to be in the right spot at the right time,or rushing and misfocusing or not setting exposure correctly.

You need the right equipment too to shoot weddings, fast lenses, F1.4 or faster, speedlights or remote trigger strobes, and a full frame DSLR that can handle ISO 3200 with minimal noise.

I viewed her website, and it looks nice.  Kudo's for her if she can get 600-1800 per portrait session as she describes.  I did notice all her samples were shot in natural light, I would be worried about that with a wedding.  At weddings there is no light, you need to know how to bounce a speedlight indoors, use it for fill flash outdoors to overcome the sun's shadows, and gel it properly to remove colors casts from tungsen or florescent lighting at the venue.  Best of luck.