I have always included CD's in my wedding packages, in the beginning I would include them with portrait sessions but I always included a fee for them in the session price. I don't think there is anything wrong with including them as long as you are charging enough to do it.

God's love.

I do shoot both but typically my digital only comes out when its dark. As far as presets and actions, I haven't found any I actually liked, or that I felt looked anything like real film.

Well my preference is natural light but that's not often the case. I carry a video light and several speedlights that I can use on and off camera. Also I have a canon 5d mk3 that I can use in low lighting situations.

Wow thank you so much for those kind words!!

That is the work of film. Film can handle the overexposure (i.e. "brightness") where digital can't or at least can't as well. Directing shoots with small children? That's a stylistic preference but I personally feel that directing them is pointless. Let them be and shoot that. That's what I would want if it was my family.

Well a few years ago we all learned on film so I can't really say that's not the way to go, but from a financial perspective, you can learn from your mistakes much faster on digital. Also, if you are being paid to shoot, I would not risk making mistakes on film because you can't go back and save the images (for the most part) whereas with digital, if you shoot raw, you can pretty much rescue any image with enough time spent editing.

I guess primarily trust. I wouldn't have someone second shoot for me that I didn't totally trust to do an good job in a professional way and be able to handle a situation if something went unexpected came up. For me, I don't do a whole lot of second shooting since Saturdays off are so hard to come by but every once in a while a friend will have an awesome wedding they'll invite me to tag a long for and If I can, I do.

The ones I have now are actually just moo. Nothing fancy but I'll get around to that someday :) Thanks!

Well that's a loaded question. Unfortunately the best teacher is experience so there isn't much I can offer you in terms of how to nail your first wedding. I know I made a lot of mistakes in my first year of shooting and the reality is that I still make mistakes sometimes. I would just say, know what you're getting into venue and lighting-wise and make sure you have the proper equipment to do the job, even if you have to rent it. You will definitely need at least two camera bodies, a flash and lenses that will work for portraits and longer distances. Ideally, a 50mm, 85mm and something longer if you are in church. A wider lens like a 28 or 35mm would help with group photos too. If you want to go the zoom lens route, I'd just rent the 24-70 and the 70-200. That should get you through. If you are in a church, make sure to be aware and respectful of their rules and MOST IMPORTANTLY make sure you and the bride are on the same page in regards to what her expectations are and how your abilities and experience can accommodate that. Talk through her timeline and make sure you have adequate time to capture the portraits and family photos. Ask her to give you a list of each family grouping she'd like and then bring that with you to the wedding and work directly from that. Those can be super stressful and a list will help it flow a bit easier. Bring more batteries than you will ever think you could use, pack protein bars, wear comfortable shoes, dress professionally and try to smile no matter how hot/tired/sore/hungry you are. Last but certainly not least, look for the best light and try to put your subject there whenever possible. Good Luck!

I personally think it is distracting from the image. To each their own I suppose but in my opinion it just isn't worth it the time.

It's not part of my standard workflow but I do have it and have tried it. I don't know if I am just doing something wrong but I don't think it fits my style very well.

Not typically. I used to rate my 35mm at half and use the in-camera meter but I felt the results were a bit less exposed than I prefer so I have more recently used the handheld meter and rated at box speed just as I would for medium format and been much happier. I have rated ilford 3200 at 1600 before but it is pretty grainy and that look doesn't work in every situation.

Actually I have not. I have had awesome results with RPL and I am currently working on creating a custom color profile so I just send all of my film there.

I actually send all of it to RPL in LA. I would like to find someplace local to send personal work since RPL is pretty pricey but I haven't had any luck with that yet. RPL processes and scans my film then sends me the jpegs and I tweak them to my preference before sending them to my clients.

Well achieving overexposure can be done using a number of iso/aperture/shutter speed combinations. It really just depends on your settings and the amount of light in your environment. I'd highly suggest shooting in "m" manual mode so you can control the settings yourself versus allowing the camera to choose. To answer your question about photoshop, it was just practice and play, trying different things to see what worked and what didnt.

I really did not set out to be a destination wedding photographer but I have had the blessing of shooting in some pretty incredible destinations. I can't really attribute those weddings to one specific source, i.e. a blog or magazine. Most are word of mouth but I have had a few that came across my site online too. I wish I knew some tips for booking destination weddings but for me it has happened rather organically. If I had to answer your question one way, I'd guess blogs. One word of advice is, think like a bride who is planning a destination wedding, where would you be spending your time online? That's where I'd start.

I use LR4 (upgraded about a month ago) and CS6 (which I just upgraded to last week)

Well it depends on what I am shooting, portraits and details would be very different from wedding party or landscapes.

that's an excellent question ;)