Reading mode: Light Dark

Why weddings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael Thomas Mitchell
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Since my fellow Middle Georgian posed the question rhetorically and knows the answer, I'll take this chance to add some perspective for all you wannabes.

Many elements converge to make amateurs consider getting into wedding photography.

There's the "you want to spend HOW MUCH on a new camera/lens/flash/tripod/photo computer?". The spouse is serving the kids mac and cheese for the fourth night in a row when you inform her of your plans to buy that nifty piece of L/IS glass. You just know your photography will grow leaps and bounds if you just had that lens, or you feel your photography has gotten so good that it deserves being done with only the finest of lenses. Never mind you're planning to spend twice as much as the 1985 Toyota station wagon your spouse is driving is worth. To soften the blow you say: "But hon, it won't cost a thing! I can make money with it!"

Then there's the "why, your photos are better than Joe Schmo's, the professional photographer!". This is a sucker punch few amateurs see coming. Almost all amateurs love to share (inflict) their latest work of art on friends and relatives. Friends and relatives, being the nice people they are, want to say something nice about your latest photo of a sunset, flower or the family cat. It usually only takes the smallest of crumbs to blow up the amateur's ego all out of proportion. At that point, it's only a small leap of logic for the amateur to conclude that if they can take a great shot of a cat licking itself, they're ready to cover a wedding with 500 guests! It's true, the amateur may have one photo that's better than the average work of one of the local pros. That's cold comfort, since a significant number of "professional" photographers are untrained hacks, who only six months ago had a well meaning friend tell them "why, your photos are better than Joe Schmo's, the professional photographer!"

Lastly, there's the "my second cousin twice removed daughter is getting married and wants me to photograph the wedding". She's seen the above mentioned cat photo, so she must have chosen you above all others since you're so talented. Maybe. OTOH, she may have chosen you for roughly the same reason the catering will consist of Uncle Bob swinging through the drive-through to pick up a couple of buckets of KFC (dark meat at that). Be aware, though, you'll run through relatives of marrying age faster than you ran through relatives willing to buy Amway from you. Then what? You'll have to go after complete strangers. That's when the fun really begins.

Bottom line is, if wannabes actually figured the time it takes and factored in both visible and hidden costs, they'd find they could make more money babysitting the family's brats during the wedding instead of photographing it.

Doug
Just having some fun.
 
Michael,

Your attitude of being willing to listen to some of the other posters' comments and learn from their experience will serve you very well. Change occurs much more slowly, or not at all, within the person who believes they have nothing more to learn. In reality, there NEVER comes a point where we have nothing more to learn.

I used to be amused when I was in music school how words such as "excellence" got thrown around so easily. "Striving for excellence" was such a commonality, and yet, frequently, what was missing altogether was sheer competence. I have worked with many fine musicians, and the best ones, in my opinion, were those who strived for competence. Their standards, quite simply, were higher because they didn't lower the bar for "excellence".

That attitude is what guides me in photography today. If someone says "great shot", I accept the compliment but look at the image myself with even greater scrutinity. What was done well? What could have been better? Was it a truly great shot, or merely a good one? (For that matter, I see "great shot!" being used all of the time in these forums to describe some marginally good images at best!) The point is not to diminish our accomplishements, but rather to keep them in perspective.

Anyway, the whole point of this is that I see characteristics within you that will permit you to grow very strong as a photographer. Keep up the good - er, great - work!

Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net
Michael Holm said:
Michael Holm said:
First of all, you're not the typical wannabe. You put in far more
preparation than most. I congratulate you for caring enough about
what you did to be as prepared as possible. Unlike most, you were
covered for just about any contingency, including camera failure.
Murphy's Law causes equipment failures at the most inopportune
time. When I was a pro, I had triple backup of the most important
items. Even though I had all my cameras serviced at least once a
year, I once had two MF bodies fail at a wedding!
Click to expand...
With the one 1Ds and one of the 10Ds as primary cameras, we were
prepared for two camera failures, I guess that's ok. We also had 2
film bodies (a EOS 5 and a EOS 10) so we were pretty sure to get
something. What was most scaring to me, was the possibility that
the Flashtrax might fail, we did not have a backup for that, and it
did after all hold the only copy of the data.
Michael Holm said:
The good - Your coverage of the wedding looks complete. You were
there, ready to go, and got all the main photos. Your presentation
of the images on the web site is nice; I like the background
image. Your images are much better than the average weekender and
better than many "pro" photographers. Since professional
photography is completely unregulated, the title "professional
photographer" means little or nothing to me.
Click to expand...
Thanks :)
Michael Holm said:
The not so good - Exposure, contrast and color balance is all over
the place. I don't know how much post processing you've done, but
many photos need work. Consistency between images is very
important, especially if the finished produce is an album. I was
such a stickler back when I did weddings that I bought film by the
case and made sure all the film I took to a wedding was from the
same emulsion run.
Click to expand...
Hmm - maybe you are right. For the preperation images, I made the
pictures with the bride very warm, to raise the romantic feeling of
the images. The shots with only the brides mother or father are
correctly balanced. I don't know if the bride would look as
romantic with the colorbalance right on, but I'll try it.
Michael Holm said:
You suffer from some shortcomings that haunt most amateurs - lack
of awareness of background, mundane composition, and lack of
variety of point of view. Many of the photographs have distracting
elements in the background, such as trees or cars. From what I can
see without being there, just a few steps to one side or the other
would have removed these distractions.
Click to expand...
I guess you are right - I'll be more carefull next time.

Also, the background for
Michael Holm said:
the formals is very distracting, with all those windows. Why
didn't you do the formals in the church?
Click to expand...
I did the formals at the dinner, and the sun was going gown. The
shots were not planned, but when I saw the site for the dinner, I
desided to do the shots as the guests were entering the dinner. I
underexposed the background, and used the studio flash to
illuminate the guests. Actually, I thougth the flash and exposure
difference helped bring out the guests, seperating them from the
background. I like the pictures, because the people are clearly
seperated from the background, and I like the mood in the
background. It's possible that they would have looked better in a
park envionment, I'll try to composite one of them onto different
backgrounds, and see what happens.
Michael Holm said:
It's not a bad first effort, but it's clearly a first effort.
Most, if not all of the shortcomings are from lack of experience
and will disappear relatively quickly.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right. I'll be more carefull with backgrounds in the
future.

Thanks for a usefull post and comments - most comments I get just
say they are great images, and while that makes me feel good, I'm
not learning much from that. So thanks for taking the time.

Michael
Click to expand...
 
If the hobbyist screws up, the couple most likely will groan quietly amongst their confidants. If the pro screws up, it will be very well publicized.

However, I have seen and hear of relationships being ruined because of disappointing results. Quite simply, family and friends should not even be ASKED to take on the responsibility of photographing a couple's wedding. The potential for disappointment, and even animosity, later on is simply too great!

Also, it might be worth mentioning that sometimes the appreciative comments and even "praise" that a friend of family photography receives might be intended on a very different level than if they had been a paid professional. I recall once when, in a terrible bind, I had to ask a friend to help me cover a pretty big wedding. They did nice work, and my praise and thanks were plentiful, but I'd have been actually rather upset if they had produced the quality of the work they did under the auspicies of being a pro. Likewise, a couple isn't likely to criticize too greatly the medocre results of the bride's enthusiastic nephew if he does it happily and doesn't receive a dime for his efforts.

Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net
squigit said:
Rob van Hoorn said:
It is all coming from the demand in the market. Not everyone is
willing to pay the prices a pro (should) ask(s) to make a living.
So there is this range from the nephew with a 300D (or
pro1/8700/828/5400? g5? v1?...), the willing hobbyist and the
starter on the market.
The first one is a disaster waiting to happen, the second one might
even be better then the pro but it is a gamble, and I don't have a
problem with the third categorie as most have gone to the trouble
of working with a veteran pro.
Photography is a product where the client can't see beforehand what
they are getting. If a pro and the nephew could show the final
product side by side I guess the pro prices are easily sold to the
client. But beforehand some people like to gamble at the outcome,
pay less, and hoping for the best.
And remember, the hobbyist does not have to worry about a bad
reputation if he/she screws up (as the pro does).
Click to expand...
I think the hobbyst has more to worry about about than the pro.
For the pro, this one couple will give you a bad reference. As a
hobbyist, its a friend's wedding you've screwed up. That sort of
thing is why I (a hobbyist) refuses weddings when friends have
asked. I'm not confident I can do a perfect job.
squigit said:
Your point is valid though.

Rob.
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
I have been coming to this site for four years now, and I'm always
amazed to see such green photographers willing to tackle an
important event like a wedding all by themself and without proper
skills or equipment. When questioned about the wisdom of such a
decision, the return is usually something like "They know it's my
first", or "I'm not getting paid", or "They LOVE my baby
portraitrs".

I agree that everyone has to start somewhere. I have even seen some
images from a (very) few of these first efforts that were pretty
darn good. For the most part, though, the work is, understandably,
not up to the task.

Why do weddings in particular fall victim to the enthusiastic but
misplaced judgements of hobbyists? They are one-time events which
are not easily (or desirably) re-staged. A child's portrait or a
model's headshot session can be shot a second or third time. A
wedding? Nope. It needs to be THERE the first time, and it needs to
be GOOD.

Sometimes, I'll hear "If I don't do it, they won't have ANYTHING!"
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't diminish the danger of being DEPENDED
on before one is ready.

I do NOT wish to discourage those who are genuinley interested in
wedding photography from pursuing that avenue. I DO want to
encourage everyone to understand that weddings are not only
difficult, but they are one-time events. I thoroughly enjoy my work
as a wedding photographer, but I learned a great deal about my
craft BEFORE I inflicted myself upon the naive couple. Thank
goodness I was not the PRIMARY photographer my first time! (I had,
however, performed music at several hundred weddings prior to my
shoot, and even then it was difficult. They never really get any
easier, I just become better at doing something difficult.)

I hope this rhetorical question -- why weddings? -- is not taken
with offense. And if anyone living in middle Georgia wants some
experience as an assistant/second shooter, I'll happily put you to
work! But please, do not your own enthusiasm keep you from
accepting the advise of lots of pros who know from experience that
weddng photography requires a thorough knowledge and experience not
only of photography, but also weddings, social skills, business
acumen, and lots of gear!

Best of luck to all!

Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net
Click to expand...
--
shoot!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'm glad you liked some of the images. Although I shoot primarily with a couple of 10D bodies right now (and even keep a Rebel over my shoulder as a ready backup), these shots were mostly made with the original D30 and D60 bodies. Wonderful cameras for weddings in every way EXCEPT for the AF system. That is why I was so happy to ge the 10D bodies... what a difference!

For lighting, I use the Canon speelite system, shooting through an unbrella wirelessly for formals. Very simple and easy arrangment, and much better than just an on-camera light, no matter what kind of bracket is used. At receptions, I'll also keep a stand with a 420 EX and Omnibounce on it in order to avoid that "in-your-face" flash look whenever possible.

I'm very anxious to update my site with newer photos... these are getting some age (circa 2001 and 2002), and the new equipment, as well as my own dedication, have produced some much better shots within the past year and half.

Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net
sunflowerflyer said:
After shooting weddings for 15 years, it's the addreneline rush.
knowing you have one chance, and wanting to live up to your
reputation.

I think a lot of people get pulled into wedding photography because
the brides don't understand how difficult it is, so they ask
someone they know how happens to own a camera! This may be driven
somewhat by the cost of a good wedding photographer.

After looking at some nice images on your site, I'm curious as too
what camera those were shot with? I see you post often to the
canon forum.

BTW, I see a couple of examples of double lighting. What equipment
do you use for that? I personally use a manual lumedyne, and a
metz (on auto) on a full manual camera for fill.
Click to expand...
 
In any area, regardless of population, there many, many more of the weddings you describe, rather than the "Society" weddings, or even the middle income "I can spend more than you did" weddings. Not everyone, any more, believes a wedding is worth incurring years-worth of debt.
 
Michael Holm said:
So - is this a bad way to start as a a wedding photog? - you be the
judge, I think I did ok.
Click to expand...
From a do-it-yourself approach, not a bad start at all. And as Doug said, a lot more preparation than many appear to put into it.

The background for the offical pix, as has been said, is very distracting. You said you have did an exposure difference, but next time you might also try dropping the f-stop done to f/2.8 and throwing the bg out-of-focus.
 
Doug,

Wow, the truth you speak of hurts even me! :)

But you're right on... at least once a month, usually during a booking session, I hear a horror story of someone who was disappointed with their photos because Uncle Joe, who worked pure magic with the cat photo, simply didn't know how to produce what was needed for the wedding.

Personally, I love it when a couple asks a friend to do alot of shots IN ADDITION to what I create, for several reasons:

1 - If I fail, at least there's a chance they'll get the shot.

2 - The couple will most likely see that I was worth the money.

3 - Somebody to talk to on breaks!

This is contingent, of course, on the additional shooter not getting in the way, which I've never had a problem with. But I know how to be tactful and friendly in these situations, I think, and generally end up making a friend.

Yes, Uncle Joe (or actually, old college roommates of the bride) are fine to have photograph at the wedding. They just shouldn't be saddled with all of that responsibility on their shoulders alone.

M

http://www.michaelphoto.net
Doug MacMillan said:
Since my fellow Middle Georgian posed the question rhetorically and
knows the answer, I'll take this chance to add some perspective for
all you wannabes.

Many elements converge to make amateurs consider getting into
wedding photography.

There's the "you want to spend HOW MUCH on a new
camera/lens/flash/tripod/photo computer?". The spouse is serving
the kids mac and cheese for the fourth night in a row when you
inform her of your plans to buy that nifty piece of L/IS glass.
You just know your photography will grow leaps and bounds if you
just had that lens, or you feel your photography has gotten so good
that it deserves being done with only the finest of lenses. Never
mind you're planning to spend twice as much as the 1985 Toyota
station wagon your spouse is driving is worth. To soften the blow
you say: "But hon, it won't cost a thing! I can make money with
it!"

Then there's the "why, your photos are better than Joe Schmo's, the
professional photographer!". This is a sucker punch few amateurs
see coming. Almost all amateurs love to share (inflict) their
latest work of art on friends and relatives. Friends and
relatives, being the nice people they are, want to say something
nice about your latest photo of a sunset, flower or the family cat.
It usually only takes the smallest of crumbs to blow up the
amateur's ego all out of proportion. At that point, it's only a
small leap of logic for the amateur to conclude that if they can
take a great shot of a cat licking itself, they're ready to cover a
wedding with 500 guests! It's true, the amateur may have one photo
that's better than the average work of one of the local pros.
That's cold comfort, since a significant number of "professional"
photographers are untrained hacks, who only six months ago had a
well meaning friend tell them "why, your photos are better than Joe
Schmo's, the professional photographer!"

Lastly, there's the "my second cousin twice removed daughter is
getting married and wants me to photograph the wedding". She's
seen the above mentioned cat photo, so she must have chosen you
above all others since you're so talented. Maybe. OTOH, she may
have chosen you for roughly the same reason the catering will
consist of Uncle Bob swinging through the drive-through to pick up
a couple of buckets of KFC (dark meat at that). Be aware, though,
you'll run through relatives of marrying age faster than you ran
through relatives willing to buy Amway from you. Then what?
You'll have to go after complete strangers. That's when the fun
really begins.

Bottom line is, if wannabes actually figured the time it takes and
factored in both visible and hidden costs, they'd find they could
make more money babysitting the family's brats during the wedding
instead of photographing it.

Doug
Just having some fun.
Click to expand...
 
Everyone sets their own priorities. Some are wiling to drive a $4000 car and spend $6000 on a wedding. Some are not. Who are we to say who is right?

I once shot a wedding where the groom spent $200 on a 3 litre bottle of Champagne. He had to have that huge bottle. He chose, he paid. I wouldn't have done it. I would have put in on one of my wall portraits(hehehe).

Once also, I had a bride and MOB visiting with me on the consultation. I mentioned spending $1000 on a wedding dress (it was a few years ago). They looked at each other and laughed. I looked puzzled and they told me they bought her dress at Penneys for $85 off the rack. They had been there just looking and saw this and tried it on and it fit perfectly so they bought it. They had plenty of money but chose to apply their money elsewhere.

dave
Fred Klaiss said:
In any area, regardless of population, there many, many more of the
weddings you describe, rather than the "Society" weddings, or even
the middle income "I can spend more than you did" weddings. Not
everyone, any more, believes a wedding is worth incurring
years-worth of debt.
Click to expand...
 
Well, this is definitely discouraging enough. What do you suppose is the difference between an "amateur" and a "professional"...when can that distinction be made and by whom...? Is it a matter of study and various degrees and certifications? I don't ask these questions flippantly, but with real curiosity.

I understand wedding photography is an art unto itself... beyond mere skill with photography in general, but judging by this last post it would seem that mere mortals shouldn't dare deign to dabble in such lofty matters.

Instead of telling my what elements converge to make the wannabe's consider getting into wedding photography, how about telling me what elements converge to make the pro's get into wedding photography...and what make's a "pro" for that matter.

This seems eminently more useful, and doesn't come across as one pro telling the other how much better they are then the lowly rabble.

I mean no offense whatsoever but I truly am curious as to how one makes that leap into truly professional wedding photography.

With respect,

Michael

P.S. I consider myself a fairly talented amateur…doing headshots, a little portrait work, architecture, art photography, etc…I would never consider at this time getting into wedding photography. Don’t get me wrong, I would love to, but I know the craft is a bear and a half, so this isn’t coming from a “wannabe” looking for an excuse to start.
Doug MacMillan said:
Since my fellow Middle Georgian posed the question rhetorically and
knows the answer, I'll take this chance to add some perspective for
all you wannabes.

Many elements converge to make amateurs consider getting into
wedding photography.

There's the "you want to spend HOW MUCH on a new
camera/lens/flash/tripod/photo computer?". The spouse is serving
the kids mac and cheese for the fourth night in a row when you
inform her of your plans to buy that nifty piece of L/IS glass.
You just know your photography will grow leaps and bounds if you
just had that lens, or you feel your photography has gotten so good
that it deserves being done with only the finest of lenses. Never
mind you're planning to spend twice as much as the 1985 Toyota
station wagon your spouse is driving is worth. To soften the blow
you say: "But hon, it won't cost a thing! I can make money with
it!"

Then there's the "why, your photos are better than Joe Schmo's, the
professional photographer!". This is a sucker punch few amateurs
see coming. Almost all amateurs love to share (inflict) their
latest work of art on friends and relatives. Friends and
relatives, being the nice people they are, want to say something
nice about your latest photo of a sunset, flower or the family cat.
It usually only takes the smallest of crumbs to blow up the
amateur's ego all out of proportion. At that point, it's only a
small leap of logic for the amateur to conclude that if they can
take a great shot of a cat licking itself, they're ready to cover a
wedding with 500 guests! It's true, the amateur may have one photo
that's better than the average work of one of the local pros.
That's cold comfort, since a significant number of "professional"
photographers are untrained hacks, who only six months ago had a
well meaning friend tell them "why, your photos are better than Joe
Schmo's, the professional photographer!"

Lastly, there's the "my second cousin twice removed daughter is
getting married and wants me to photograph the wedding". She's
seen the above mentioned cat photo, so she must have chosen you
above all others since you're so talented. Maybe. OTOH, she may
have chosen you for roughly the same reason the catering will
consist of Uncle Bob swinging through the drive-through to pick up
a couple of buckets of KFC (dark meat at that). Be aware, though,
you'll run through relatives of marrying age faster than you ran
through relatives willing to buy Amway from you. Then what?
You'll have to go after complete strangers. That's when the fun
really begins.

Bottom line is, if wannabes actually figured the time it takes and
factored in both visible and hidden costs, they'd find they could
make more money babysitting the family's brats during the wedding
instead of photographing it.

Doug
Just having some fun.
Click to expand...
--
'The professional is behind the camera, not in the camera's model number'
 
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
Doug,

Wow, the truth you speak of hurts even me! :)
Click to expand...
Michael,

Sorry. Glad you took it so well. It may be of comfort to know that a lot of what I wrote about was sef-directed and semi-autbiographical :-).

The Uncle Joe's have always been a fact of life. You seem to have a great attitude in dealing with them. It's better to have them as an ally than an adversary. I often recruited them to point out the special guests that I might not recognize, such as a favorite teacher or the Boy Scout Scoutmaster.

The only time I had problems with others photographing was doing the formals. Back when I was doing weddings, I used multiple strobes for the formals with a light sensitive slave. Nowadays, I'd only use radio slaves. My concerns were folks tripping my slaves and the divided interest of the subjects in group shots. Nothing bothers me more than having half the subjects looking at the camera and the other half looking off to the side. When I view one of those photographs, I imagine that the prettiest bridesmaid has fallen out of her dress and that's what folks are looking at. Then I get mad that I wasn't there to witness it!

98% of the Uncle Joe's were very understanding once I explained my concerns. I actually had more trouble with the clueless spinster aunts who couldn't comprehend their Instamatics were wreaking havoc on my monolights. Personally, I feel the more photos the better, especially at the reception. I viewed my work as an important part, but not the complete record of the wedding.

I think the wedding business is tougher now than when I was in the business (I changed careers in 1987). The ability to make excellent copies relatively cheaply is forcing wedding pros to change their business model. Gone are the days that income was derived solely from print sales.

Someone wrote that there is a trend away from going in debt only to stage an elaborate wedding. I'm all for that, but I'm afraid it will be the bottom feeder wedding pros that will bear the brunt. OTOH, it makes me think of a wedding pro friend of mine who worked in south central Georgia. She said she'd rather work a farmer's daughter's wedding any day over the First Church upwardly mobile daughter's wedding. As a general rule, the farmers loved family and photographs. They wanted plenty of photo memories and were proud they could pay for them. The upwardly mobile crowd was all about showing off to others. They were more likely to go all out on the reception, since it would be seen (and envied) by far more folks than would ever see the wedding album.

I'll close with a question for Michael. How do you know you're at a wedding in Griffin? Instead of asking "bride or groom", the ushers ask "Ford or Chevy?".

Doug
 
There's also the "give-the-photos-as-a-gift" guy, who'd rather shoot than buy a place setting.

What's little considered when you're shooting for friends or family is the fact that you're going to miss the wedding.

When everyone's enjoying the ceremony, you're sneaking around the back trying to get a clear shot around Aunt Margret's hat.

When everyone's visiting before and after the ceremony, you're setting up, tearing down, and shooting formals.

When everyone's eating, talking, and having a good time at the reception, you're getting pictures of them eating, talking, and having a good time.

When everyone's dancing, you're taking pictures... you get the idea.

Shooting a wedding for friends or family transforms you from a participant and guest into an observer and outsider.

Not the greatest way to spend someone's "best day"...
 
Michael Coakley said:
Instead of telling my what elements converge to make the wannabe's
consider getting into wedding photography, how about telling me
what elements converge to make the pro's get into wedding
photography...and what make's a "pro" for that matter.

This seems eminently more useful, and doesn't come across as one
pro telling the other how much better they are then the lowly
rabble.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Keep in mind that I haven't been in the business since 1987, so it's not so much "one pro telling another..."

I have a degree in photography from Art Center in LA. I didn't learn the nuts and bolts of wedding photography there, though. I was fortunate enough to assist a couple of very good wedding photographers before I went to school. I think apprenticeship is the only way to really learn wedding photography. What you learn is far more than how to capture the image. You need to learn the flow of the day. You need to learn how to work with people in a highly stressful environment. You need to learn how to think on your feet, to anticipate action way before it happens and how to improvise when things don't go according to plan (it never does). On top of all this, you need to know how to turn out consistently excellent work. You can't learn all this without being there, but you shouldn't be there as the primary shooter, making it up as you go along.

Many amateurs consider wedding photography because they've observed a pro at a wedding and it looks so easy. That's usually a compliment to the pro. It's like me taking up ice skating because Michelle Kwan makes it look so easy.

What I disdain are the genuinely clueless who jeopordize a couple's one shot at wedding photos. Michael, the original poster, did an eloquent job listing his (and my) concerns.

Doug
 
Hi,

Good questions.

I think you are asking - why weddings? - simply because most beginners know less about the skills to photograph weddings than they do families, children, so on. I think just as many beginners are doing the other avenues of photography as they are doing weddings - weddings just get more press because it is more intense (and most beginners realize this and ask more questions).

But also, the public falls for it because 1) many are desparate to save money where they can and 2) the vast majority of the public simply don't realize there are skills specifically related to wedding photography.

Most people think if someone is a good nature (or chlidrens, or still life, or so on) photographer, than they are a good wedding photographer. After all, they are a good photographer. Most people simply don't realize that weddings require a whole different skill set (full knowledge of equipment, quickness in posing and organizing, instant decision making, ability to capture action, strong flash/ambient light mixing, public relations, ability to handle pressure, the list goes on).

So, many people are willing to hire a beginner or a non-wedding photographer if they show an inkling of ability in any area of photography and/or they are willing to save them money. In their minds, they are getting a good photographer AND saving dough for the honeymoon. Why not take the risk?

Jim Herndon
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
I have been coming to this site for four years now, and I'm always
amazed to see such green photographers willing to tackle an
important event like a wedding all by themself and without proper
skills or equipment. When questioned about the wisdom of such a
decision, the return is usually something like "They know it's my
first", or "I'm not getting paid", or "They LOVE my baby
portraitrs".

I agree that everyone has to start somewhere. I have even seen some
images from a (very) few of these first efforts that were pretty
darn good. For the most part, though, the work is, understandably,
not up to the task.

Why do weddings in particular fall victim to the enthusiastic but
misplaced judgements of hobbyists? They are one-time events which
are not easily (or desirably) re-staged. A child's portrait or a
model's headshot session can be shot a second or third time. A
wedding? Nope. It needs to be THERE the first time, and it needs to
be GOOD.

Sometimes, I'll hear "If I don't do it, they won't have ANYTHING!"
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't diminish the danger of being DEPENDED
on before one is ready.

I do NOT wish to discourage those who are genuinley interested in
wedding photography from pursuing that avenue. I DO want to
encourage everyone to understand that weddings are not only
difficult, but they are one-time events. I thoroughly enjoy my work
as a wedding photographer, but I learned a great deal about my
craft BEFORE I inflicted myself upon the naive couple. Thank
goodness I was not the PRIMARY photographer my first time! (I had,
however, performed music at several hundred weddings prior to my
shoot, and even then it was difficult. They never really get any
easier, I just become better at doing something difficult.)

I hope this rhetorical question -- why weddings? -- is not taken
with offense. And if anyone living in middle Georgia wants some
experience as an assistant/second shooter, I'll happily put you to
work! But please, do not your own enthusiasm keep you from
accepting the advise of lots of pros who know from experience that
weddng photography requires a thorough knowledge and experience not
only of photography, but also weddings, social skills, business
acumen, and lots of gear!

Best of luck to all!

Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Doug. You're reply confims my suspicions about the inherent difficulties in weddding photography, and precisly why would never take a primary position as a wedding photographer. Now, if I can just find a local guy/gal to let me tag along...in a few years, who knows...;)

Thanks for the reply.

Regards,

Mike
Doug MacMillan said:
Fair enough. Keep in mind that I haven't been in the business
since 1987, so it's not so much "one pro telling another..."

I have a degree in photography from Art Center in LA. I didn't
learn the nuts and bolts of wedding photography there, though. I
was fortunate enough to assist a couple of very good wedding
photographers before I went to school. I think apprenticeship is
the only way to really learn wedding photography. What you learn
is far more than how to capture the image. You need to learn the
flow of the day. You need to learn how to work with people in a
highly stressful environment. You need to learn how to think on
your feet, to anticipate action way before it happens and how to
improvise when things don't go according to plan (it never does).
On top of all this, you need to know how to turn out consistently
excellent work. You can't learn all this without being there, but
you shouldn't be there as the primary shooter, making it up as you
go along.

Many amateurs consider wedding photography because they've observed
a pro at a wedding and it looks so easy. That's usually a
compliment to the pro. It's like me taking up ice skating because
Michelle Kwan makes it look so easy.

What I disdain are the genuinely clueless who jeopordize a couple's
one shot at wedding photos. Michael, the original poster, did an
eloquent job listing his (and my) concerns.

Doug
Click to expand...
--
'The professional is behind the camera, not in the camera's model number'
 
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
weddng photography requires a thorough knowledge and experience not
only of photography, but also weddings, social skills, business
acumen, and lots of gear!
Click to expand...
Member said:
Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net
Click to expand...
The problem is that modern digital cameras delude people into believing that all it takes to shoot great pictures is to put the camera on automatic and Bingo! you're a wedding photographer. In other words, the camera is usually ahead of people. This works well in daylight and outside, but then in the end the amateur photographer wonders why the indoor pictures look like they were shot by someone with a cheap point and shoot.

Just look at the mediocre pictures that people post here (often pictures taken with super expensive equipment) and it can be easily seen that most dilettantic wedding "photographers" won't be up for the task.

ricardo
 
I think most people are well aware when the photographer at a wedding is doing it for the first time, and it doesn't hurt the profession as a whole. The guy I'm worried about is the one who's been at it for 20 years and is set in his ways.

I was at a friend's wedding where the photographer, who is in his late 40's and was a little bit smarmy, used a Mamiya RB67, on a tripod, with one lens and a great big Metz flash. He only used this camera, never changed the lens, had the shutter speed set at 1/400 (I'm sure of it), and had the Metz set on maximum power for every shot. So the pictures all had inky-black backgrounds, side shadows when near walls (didn't use a Stroboframe) and in general looked like they were taken with a point-and-shoot. To make things worse, he took MONTHS to show them their proofs, and many more months to print their order. And he was rude to boot.

She told me that all of her friends hated the photographer they used at their weddings, and she couldn't find a decent photographer in her city (of roughly 1 million people). I live four hours away, and am considering offering my services there for that reason.
Michael Long said:
macca_101 said:
It doesn't matter how many times you tag along as a secondary/assistant ..... I do think there's a certain negative element within this forum regarding 'new' wedding photographers.
Click to expand...
If everyone "tagged along" it would be great. Unfortunately, there
are way, way too many posts that start with...

"I've got my first wedding coming up in a couple of weeks. What
camera / lens / flash should I buy?"

Some may in fact have the experience to pull it off. The others,
however, are time bombs waiting to explode.

And when they do, it's the profession as a whole that catches most
of the blast...
Click to expand...
 
Michael, i looked at your website and i must say - i've seen much better stuff. So maybe you should stop shooting weddings and go assist somebody who's better than you. And i'm not joking.
 
Geez. Hmm, you must have really high standards, eh Oleg?

I'll look for you on Slashdot, modded -5 troll, no doubt.
Oleg K said:
Michael, i looked at your website and i must say - i've seen much
better stuff. So maybe you should stop shooting weddings and go
assist somebody who's better than you. And i'm not joking.
Click to expand...
 
Wow! According to Oleg, if I shoot in RAW, I never need to bother with setting aperture or shutter speed again. I'll shoot everything at 1/2000 at f/22 in a dark reception hall to get sharp pictures with unlimited depth of field. Thanks Oleg!
feivel said:
Oleg K said:
Michael, i looked at your website and i must say - i've seen much
better stuff. So maybe you should stop shooting weddings and go
assist somebody who's better than you. And i'm not joking.
Click to expand...
well i really liked michaels stuff but i defer to your opinion
it is clear you are quite an expert on digital photography
see here for instance:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=8965004
feivel
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top