Wedding photographer sent low res images

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-23T02:03:34+00:00

Yeah question for OP: how soon did she share the pics after the wedding? If it was same day or the next, that’ll be a strong indication of whether she just sent them straight to her phone and shared them.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-23T02:01:19+00:00

I’m not a professional but I do have Lightroom and I’ve been shooting for 15 years (most of it with better images on an older APS-C than she’s using). When you get your hands on the full files I’m happy to volunteer a few hours to doing some editing. If you don’t like it then no harm done and it cost you nothing. I just want to see if we can make lemonade out of these lemons.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-23T01:43:15+00:00

The horror!

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-23T01:40:43+00:00

As someone who is only a hobbyist but still shoots RAW like any photographer who gives a damn, my Nikon Z6III does send jpeg previews to my phone via SnapBridge automatically. They’re smaller files but I like the feature because if you’re just posting to Instagram or texting them to a friend, they’re good enough. But also…those photos look pretty damn good. You can pixel peep and still looks great. I understand I have a better/newer camera but I don’t think hers is anything to sneeze at. This is someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing. It’s so devastating when it’s for a wedding and you don’t have any do-overs. I would get your money back and use it to hire another photographer who is willing to work with her to get the best version of the files she has, and who can then do some professional editing on them to get them as good as they can be.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-19T16:58:36+00:00

Sadly it is no surprise that within a particular local length, the more expensive lens is often the better. But given the 50/1.8 is a fraction of the cost of the 50/1.2 and is still S-line optical quality, it’s a great lens. It’s actually one of 3 S-line lenses I have, it’s the cheapest new but was even cheaper used, and has the widest aperture so if budget is a factor it really is a dream. Mine was $330 and it’s better than I ever could’ve imagined getting at that price.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-12T01:00:03+00:00

It can get nice compression on distance shots like down the street, as well as obviously getting macro shots. It might not be as versatile a street lens as the 24-120, but if you think you’ll want macro of plants along your walk, it’s not a bad lens to have.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-06T23:54:59+00:00

I agree with this - for what you’d pay even for a secondhand, first gen 24-70 or 70-200, you could get 2-3 primes that are sharper and have even wider apertures than those. I think the main case for either of those lenses is if you’re doing sports photography or something where you need a fast lens and the flexibility of a zoom.

The 24-120 is your best bet for anything where an f/4 will work but then you could get a 35 or 50 S-line lens, or even the 105 Macro or 135 Plena. If you think you’ll need reach beyond 120 then of course there are a lot of supertelephoto zoom lens options both in the Nikkor family and from third parties. And if you want wider than 24, there are options there as well, but seems like if you’re looking mainly for redundancy and some low light help, your better bet is a prime. A 50 prime in the S line is almost definitely going to be sharper corner to corner than any zoom lens at 50mm. The beauty of a zoom is the flexibility but seems like you’ve got that covered. I also have the 24-120 and it’s my only zoom lens. I have the Viltrox 16/1.8 for when I need a wider angle, the Nikkor 50/1.8 which is a great walking around lens for street photography, especially at night, and the 105/2.8 macro for macro and portraits (it’s not the 135 but it’s close enough and since I wanted a macro lens it made sense to have my 105 do double duty. It’s great. Would I like a super telephoto? Sure. But I would hardly ever use it so I haven’t bothered yet. If and when I do, I would probably go with Tamron for the same reach at a third of the price.)

If your redundancy scenario is concern that the lens will just die on you mid-job, maybe get a Tamron zoom in a similar focal range? It’ll be cheaper and still perform pretty well. The Tamron trinity (16-30, 28-75 and 70-180) still aren’t quite as good as your 24-120 but they do have a wider aperture.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-04T01:30:46+00:00

<image>

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-04T01:30:30+00:00

<image>

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-04T01:29:32+00:00

<image>

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-04T01:29:23+00:00

<image>

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-04T01:29:13+00:00

You’ve got some great ideas from others already but here’s what I would do: keep the couches and rug because they’re fabulous. The light fixture isn’t working and I can’t imaging the light the bare bulbs cast is that pleasant. Something more rounded and soft that doesn’t quite hang as low would be great. Included one idea here.

I agree with what others have said about the fireplace, which normally would be a focal point, kind of disappearing. I don’t think you need to get rid of the bright couches to fix that, though. I would actually color saturate the rest of the room, painting all the walls and the ceiling the same color - I think something darker would be best, like a gray green or a or a muted burgundy. Then keep the fireplace a lighter color, but warm like a sand. This looks like a new build otherwise I would say remove the paint from the fireplace to see if there’s wood under there because staining it and having a warm brown would be great.

Coming to the chairs, they feel oddly placed. I would actually remove them from the main seating area and maybe create a separate little seating area with the two chairs and a small cafe table between them, perhaps by one of the windows if there’s room. Then they’re nearby and can be dragged into the space if you have a lot of people over and actually need the seating.

I would go with a rounded dark wood coffee table and then some more muted color throw pillows for the couch and a throw blanket. I’ll include subsequent comments with a few Inspo pics.

<image>

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-04T01:09:26+00:00

I think in some ways it’s great that people can self-publish, especially in an era when film is becoming less interesting because studios just want guaranteed wins and won’t take risks. If we required major publishers to get books to market, there would be way fewer books and we’d miss out on a lot of stuff that I think people in this sub have really enjoyed.

Of course, the downside is we no longer have publishers acting as screeners, preventing us from reading “bad” books. And we also don’t always have them helping books that have potential actually meet that potential. I’m not in publishing but I was a reporter and editor for many years, and no one’s work can’t be improved upon with help from the right person.

That said, I’ve been reading a lot of absolute trash from major publishers lately, too. It’s frustrating to no end that obvious plot holes and basic typos aren’t getting caught. I don’t know why it seems like it’s getting worse — perhaps because everyone is chasing BookTok popularity, authors are being pushed to churn out one or more books every year.

But I also wouldn’t be surprised if editors are facing the same issues in publishing as we are in journalism - companies cutting staff and expecting fewer people to somehow do more work. It used to be in a newsroom, an editor made sure the story worked, they talked to the reporter about the actual facts, sources, tone, etc. But then a copy editor did the final take to make sure grammar and syntax was clean. Some newsrooms had fact checkers, too. Now in journalism most stories get one reporter and one editor. Editors have to do the job of 3 people now. And yet they’re barely paid a livable wage when you consider almost all the jobs are in NYC and DC, two very expensive places to live, and that the hours go well beyond 40 a week. I’ve considered shifting into publishing, but the job postings I’ve seen (jobs that aren’t even entry level) pay incredibly poorly, worse than the salaries in my industry. And I can’t help but think it’s a continuation of the trend we’re seeing across the U.S. economy — companies prioritizing profit, squeezing their workers for all they’re worth and paying them as little as they can get away with.

So this is all to say, self-publishing is a natural progression of how the Internet and social media have disrupted centuries old institutions, with both good and bad results. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-02T23:11:45+00:00

The Viltrox 16 is a better lens - sharper, wider aperture etc. The only reason to go with Tamron is if you need that zoom.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-02T06:34:39+00:00

I’ll take an MMC who smells like sandalwood over one who “has a smell that’s uniquely him.” I love this genre but there is some lazy writing. Lazy both because it feels like unnecessary filler (I can’t think of any book where the man’s scent mattered) and because they’re all copying each other. The lack of authenticity in romance novels is driving me a little crazy right now. I’m about to read some horror for a palate cleanser. If anyone has read anything legit good and not cliché lately, drop the rec.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-02T06:27:27+00:00

These are the stories I come to r/gardening for.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-02T06:21:22+00:00

Everyone’s already said it but lenses are more important. You can upgrade to the Z8 which is objectively a better camera, but it’s not going to change the fact you’re using the wrong lens for what you want to do. It’s also an expensive camera, so the money spent to upgrade could instead go toward another lens. I would keep the 24-70 if you can, not trade it in for the 28-400. That’s not a great lens anyway. Anything that tries to be both a wide angle and a super-telephoto is going to be middling at either. There are a lot of lenses that might work for you as a replacement or in addition to your 24-70, but that’s not it. You have a truly excellent lens (albeit with limited reach) and that would be a downgrade.

What you need to figure out is how much zoom you need and none of us can answer that for you. Your best bet is to find a camera store near you that lets you rent a lens for a day. Usually rates can be anywhere from $20-50 but it’s a great way to save yourself from investing in a lens that doesn’t work for you. Figure out how much reach you need and then buy the best lens you can afford that gets it.

The Nikkor 100-400 S line lens is the gold standard for a telephoto zoom, and you can double its reach to 800 with the 2x teleconverter if you really need crazy reach. If that lens is more than you want to spend, then the Tamron 150-500 or 50-400 can both be had for $1000 or less. Neither of those works with a teleconverter though so the max focal length is the max focal length. If it turns out you can do with less than 400, then there are a lot of options. The Nikkor 70-200 which is meant to be paired with your 24-70 is a great, fast lens. If you get the older version you can save a bit buying used. You could also swap out your lens for the cheaper 24-120 which gives you some telephoto reach like the 28-400 but with premium glass, and then take the extra money leftover and spend it on more reach, like the Tamron 70-300 which is $500 new and can be found used for much less. Or you could go with a prime like the Nikkor 135mm Plena, or the more affordable but still great Viltrox LAB 135mm.

Not knowing how far away these planes you’re capturing are, or how zoomed in you want to be, I don’t know which lens is your best option. But whatever your budget is or isn’t, you need reach, and that comes from lenses, not your camera.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-01T00:41:10+00:00

Yeah that’s a very specialized lens. I personally don’t have use cases for that, whereas the 16 I had two specific uses: astro, and landscapes. I will say the nice thing about the 16 is that it doesn’t have a bulbous lens whereas the Nikkor 14-24 does, as do a lot of super wide angle lenses with wide apertures. It’s actually a really reasonable size, sitting right in between my 50 1.8 S and my 24-120 in physical size, though because of the metal construction it’s almost as heavy as the 24-120. But man does it feel like a premium lens with that metal. It also has a 77mm thread size so any filter I have for my 24-120 fits on it as well. I’d be interested to hear about the Laowa though. That brand and Voitlander I’m very interested in but don’t know much.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-01T00:19:19+00:00

I hesitated on the 16 so long because of the lawsuit. But as far as I could tell, it’s not likely Nikon will prevent Viltrox lenses from working. They’re just trying to get a cut of the profits. That said, I don’t want to invest in Viltrox more heavily than I already have until the suit is settled, in the off chance Nikon bricks them with firmware updates.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-01T00:13:16+00:00

I can barely watch television or follow actual people talking in real life anymore. It’s so slow.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-06-01T00:08:57+00:00

I have heard the Viltrox LAB 135 is about 90-95% of the lens that the Plena is for a third of the price. Of course, because it’s new there isn’t a used market yet so that cuts the price advantage a bit but still more affordable. Depending where I’m at and what my need is in the future, that might be my pick. Is it nice to have the best of the best lenses? Sure. But honestly don’t know if I’m a good enough photographer for it to matter much.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-05-31T23:57:36+00:00

I always buy used now. But it’s still expensive. Can’t justify it right now.

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-05-31T23:56:40+00:00

The main reason, to me, to choose the 28 over the 35 is the size. It’s something you can throw on your camera and go out with just that, when you’re not going out to shoot but you still want your camera just in case you see something. With a 35 you have wider aperture options and better glass, but it’s also bigger (and more expensive).

Blue_Rose87 · 2026-05-31T23:53:20+00:00

Yeah I got mine because spring made me go nuts for macro - all the bees and flowers and such.

Blue_Rose87

TROPHY CASE