What has happened to wedding photography
Feb 20, 2012 10:17:10 #
People claiming that cut the budget of your cake, ring, etc for a pro photographer? Well, that really isn't practical! A friend of mine was getting married in a civil ceremony in a court room. The Pro wanted 1,000 for the honor of taking the pictures, his words. The ceremony lasted maybe 20 minutes, and all that for $1000. Money is tight, everybody needs to adjust, that is why Pro Photographers are being replaced. The Quality maybe perfect but the price?
Feb 20, 2012 10:33:28 #
jimni2001 wrote:
......It seems that there trend is to buy a bunch of disposable cameras and hand them out to the guest. The guest then record your wedding. I am betting that is what happened. I shot a wedding recently (non paid for one of my best friends son and they did this. The ironic thing is that a week later when I had all of my processing done and had created a slideshow and prints for this couple they had already split up.
I agree, most of the weddings that I have done the lawyers and camera companies were the ones that cleaned up. My lawyer friend received more than enough to cover four or five photographers fee for just filling out some forms and completing the small print hidden in the vows . Now I want to become a lawyer or a politician my muse for wedding photography has diminished by attrition. Now I appease my artistic drive by creating my own photos, that however is not very lucrative. But there is always welfare and homeless shelters because modern weddings seem to be becoming very ephemeral to say the least. I think they should pay a closing cost at the beginning of each ceremony. . . . Something like real-estate contractors require.
Feb 20, 2012 10:34:00 #
Cloudwalker
Loc: New Bedford, MA
photosbyhenry wrote:
My nephew's daughter got married last August and s... (show quote)
I'm in my 19th year as a full-time pro and have seen the shift in priorities. Today's customers have been seduced by the gargantuan volume of images made possible by digital capture and have subconsciously been convinced to emphasize quantity over quality. The proprietor of the photo lab I use, a 30-year veteran of every phase of the media, told me that since the advent of digital cameras in wedding/portrait photography, he has never seen such a significant percentage of substandard work be submitted to his facility. (He recently attended a wedding where he was flabbergasted at the frantic, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach of the 2 photographers involved).
Even professionals that had previously produced excellent
work as film shooters were now caving to the imprudent demands of their clientele and creating inferior images in his opinion. During the interview process I make sure to mention that I shoot film and produce fewer pictures but there will be a much higher ratio of photos with merit. Every shot will actually have a point - I don't click the shutter indiscriminantly to simply satisfy a promised total.
My philosophical approach works with some and not others - unfortunately for the old school practicioners like myself, the craft is slowly going the way of cabinetmakers and other artisans. Thankfully, I still appeal more to those who would rather have one Ferrari in the garage than five Yugos...
Feb 20, 2012 10:42:25 #
Good point...pictures should allow a story to be told...recall memories.....I can see being too excessive in the number of photos...rather than quality....in some cases some picture is better than none,.,,,sounded like an amature approach were more was better than quality.....but some people dont know what to ask about the photographers approach.....so shame on both...the "pro" and the cuatomer!
Feb 20, 2012 10:56:18 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
Big Daddy wrote:
Ok I'll say what many of us are thinking. I think ... (show quote)
That's my feeling too, and my wife's, fortunately, but I think a lot of it is down to personality. To many people, yes, photos are no more (and no less) than reminders of the day, and anything reasonably competent will do.
The main reason I can see for spending thousands on wedding photography, or a $2000 cake, or $1500 on flowers, is so that your wedding pictures are as perfect an example of conspicuous consumption as the wedding itself.
Plenty, I know, think very differently. Well, fine, it's their money. I'm not going to say they're wrong. But we all have different priorities, and theirs aren't mine. I genuinely cannot understand people who say "When the wedding is over, all you have left is the pictures." How about each other... and your wedding rings... and your memories?
Cheers,
R.
Feb 20, 2012 11:03:24 #
Ok...first of all...I am a hopless romantic...secondly...I think huge weddings are ridiculous...Let the Father Of The Bride put the 15 or 20k that the wedding costs in the couples future...not in a one day thing.
The couple will always remember because...uhh...they were there...let the guests take the pictures...
Thirdly...who actually wants 1000 pics of their wedding???
Personally I wouldnt look at a 1000 pictures of an alien invasion...20 or 30 would send me to the basement.
Heres how we did it...Got married in the back yard...3 kegs of beer and three grills for hot dogs and burgers...friends cooked...decorated the back yard...and we had the most fun...no Limos...no $5000 pictures...not because the Father In Law couldnt afford it...but because we thought it was silly.
The couple will always remember because...uhh...they were there...let the guests take the pictures...
Thirdly...who actually wants 1000 pics of their wedding???
Personally I wouldnt look at a 1000 pictures of an alien invasion...20 or 30 would send me to the basement.
Heres how we did it...Got married in the back yard...3 kegs of beer and three grills for hot dogs and burgers...friends cooked...decorated the back yard...and we had the most fun...no Limos...no $5000 pictures...not because the Father In Law couldnt afford it...but because we thought it was silly.
Feb 20, 2012 11:05:52 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
ggttc wrote:
Ok...first of all...I am a hopless romantic...seco... (show quote)
Beautifully put!
Cheers,
R. (another hopeless romantic)
Feb 20, 2012 11:21:22 #
I know some photographers that take many shots and then post all of them prior to editing. When they get an order they then edit them. This way they do not waste time editing the ones no one will buy. I personally don't like this approach because I am not sure how well potential customers can visualize how the final product will look. The other reason is I don't want to use up valuable web space and the customers time viewing photos that will obviously be rejected. Perhaps a third reason, at least subconciously, is that I don't want them to know I take so many bad photos. Like art there is no right or wrong just different tastes/approaches.
Feb 20, 2012 11:22:19 #
Well...thank you Roger...I now have a target on my back for all "pro" wedding photograhers...not that most of them can shoot anyway
Feb 20, 2012 11:44:44 #
They call it "Wedding Photojounalism" Strange that the books I have on it half the pictures are set up. Are you going to get the whole wedding party jumping in the air with out a little couching? - Dave
Feb 20, 2012 12:58:16 #
Lucian
Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio
A few point to address...
"Photos are not important" is a silly statement. Of those who had video and photos of their wedding, almost all will view the wedding album over and over again but will rarely sit and watch the whole videoed wedding more than one or two times.
Friends or family will nearly always prefer to page through a book than sit and watch screen. You can take a wedding book and show it anywhere, with video you have to take along all the equipment required to show it, if not at someone's home.
As for the registry office one hour wedding coverage for $1,000 that was crazy and the photographer was an idiot, unless of course this was a Saturday and he let go a full days wedding booking by taking your one hour wedding. You can't expect him to loose an all day event only because you need an hour of his time and then expect to just pay a few dollars for that time. A Friday would work for such a wedding and I'm sure there would be loads of photographers who would offer to cover that one hour on a Friday for far, far less than what was quoted.
When people can't afford a fancy expensive cake or the Ritz for a reception or a full paid bar or big dinner, then yes of course they should look for what they can afford as a photographer and no one would blame that for that.
What pisses me off is when you see a wedding with a huge expensive cake, loads of fancy expensive flowers, a double DJ and light show, or a band, a huge dinner and open bar at an expensive venue and big expensive ring. Then they look to the photographer to scrimp and save, wanting so much for next to nothing. It was clear they didn't scrimp and save on anything else, so why should the photographer be the one to throw the scraps to?
When all is said and done and the day has passed, you only rented the beer, you left most of it behind in the toilets, you won't remember much of the meal after a while and you may drive past the place it all happened at and the flowers are long gone, so all you DO have is the photographs to keep that memory going and refer back to from time to time to keep the memory fresh. Of course you have each other so such a statement was not worth bothering to add, since all know that.
Having said that, back in the old days we only had one chance to photograph a bride, usually. However, in today's world we may be able to photograph that bride, 2 maybe 3 or 4 times in her life and possibly get to photograph the old groom with his new wife a time or two more as well. And as they keep dividing up, it becomes like compounded interest!
Photos will always be the things that last the test of time. Just look at any natural or fire disaster footage of people going back to their homes after they have been destroyed. You don't see them sifting through the rubble to find the beer or that bottle of champagne they had been saving, or the dress from the wedding. No, they are sifting through things for the photos that are hopefully still left behind, photos from every event that took place in their lives that they were lucky enough to have had recorded.
Photos are the one thing that people cherish the world over as something to preserve memories. Too many brides forget that when it comes time to divvy out money for those involved in the wedding. Too much of today's wedding are put on show off to your friends, productions and THAT is why the money gets spent on such things as cake, flowers, venue, ring and dress, not in that order of course, and at the end they think about getting someone to record it all.
And as for those stupid throw away cameras, most produce such poor images and they are shot in such dark surroundings that they are usually 80% or more, useless not to mention that many take the cameras home or forget they had them and then there is the wasted money of getting it all printed. Now what, no one will be interested in sifting through all those images, and to get it put into a digital file for use is another expense again. It always sounds great but is the biggest waste of money there is for extras at a wedding.
A little tip for anyone with an upcoming wedding in the family. Have a section in the bridal registry of gifts, to include a cash donation towards the photography of the day's events. That way you will not end up with three toasters and 4 sets of cutlery or tons of towels and bedding you won't need. You will have money to help towards better photo coverage or an upscale wedding book.
And save money on the ring and put it towards a photographer, who is also good of course. That way you'll have great coverage, great photos to refer back to to help with the memory of the day and share with others who were not able to make it. You can buy an expensive ring in a few years but you can't have better photos taken of your wedding a few years later.
No one on here can tell if that was a huge CZ or a real diamond on that ring, and who really cares anyway? I'd rather look through a beautiful wedding book from a talented photographer of friends and family members any day, than look at a silly huge ring on a finger. And their children would rather look back at old family photos too than see the big ring on their mums finger, I'm sure.
That's my thoughts on the matter.
"Photos are not important" is a silly statement. Of those who had video and photos of their wedding, almost all will view the wedding album over and over again but will rarely sit and watch the whole videoed wedding more than one or two times.
Friends or family will nearly always prefer to page through a book than sit and watch screen. You can take a wedding book and show it anywhere, with video you have to take along all the equipment required to show it, if not at someone's home.
As for the registry office one hour wedding coverage for $1,000 that was crazy and the photographer was an idiot, unless of course this was a Saturday and he let go a full days wedding booking by taking your one hour wedding. You can't expect him to loose an all day event only because you need an hour of his time and then expect to just pay a few dollars for that time. A Friday would work for such a wedding and I'm sure there would be loads of photographers who would offer to cover that one hour on a Friday for far, far less than what was quoted.
When people can't afford a fancy expensive cake or the Ritz for a reception or a full paid bar or big dinner, then yes of course they should look for what they can afford as a photographer and no one would blame that for that.
What pisses me off is when you see a wedding with a huge expensive cake, loads of fancy expensive flowers, a double DJ and light show, or a band, a huge dinner and open bar at an expensive venue and big expensive ring. Then they look to the photographer to scrimp and save, wanting so much for next to nothing. It was clear they didn't scrimp and save on anything else, so why should the photographer be the one to throw the scraps to?
When all is said and done and the day has passed, you only rented the beer, you left most of it behind in the toilets, you won't remember much of the meal after a while and you may drive past the place it all happened at and the flowers are long gone, so all you DO have is the photographs to keep that memory going and refer back to from time to time to keep the memory fresh. Of course you have each other so such a statement was not worth bothering to add, since all know that.
Having said that, back in the old days we only had one chance to photograph a bride, usually. However, in today's world we may be able to photograph that bride, 2 maybe 3 or 4 times in her life and possibly get to photograph the old groom with his new wife a time or two more as well. And as they keep dividing up, it becomes like compounded interest!
Photos will always be the things that last the test of time. Just look at any natural or fire disaster footage of people going back to their homes after they have been destroyed. You don't see them sifting through the rubble to find the beer or that bottle of champagne they had been saving, or the dress from the wedding. No, they are sifting through things for the photos that are hopefully still left behind, photos from every event that took place in their lives that they were lucky enough to have had recorded.
Photos are the one thing that people cherish the world over as something to preserve memories. Too many brides forget that when it comes time to divvy out money for those involved in the wedding. Too much of today's wedding are put on show off to your friends, productions and THAT is why the money gets spent on such things as cake, flowers, venue, ring and dress, not in that order of course, and at the end they think about getting someone to record it all.
And as for those stupid throw away cameras, most produce such poor images and they are shot in such dark surroundings that they are usually 80% or more, useless not to mention that many take the cameras home or forget they had them and then there is the wasted money of getting it all printed. Now what, no one will be interested in sifting through all those images, and to get it put into a digital file for use is another expense again. It always sounds great but is the biggest waste of money there is for extras at a wedding.
A little tip for anyone with an upcoming wedding in the family. Have a section in the bridal registry of gifts, to include a cash donation towards the photography of the day's events. That way you will not end up with three toasters and 4 sets of cutlery or tons of towels and bedding you won't need. You will have money to help towards better photo coverage or an upscale wedding book.
And save money on the ring and put it towards a photographer, who is also good of course. That way you'll have great coverage, great photos to refer back to to help with the memory of the day and share with others who were not able to make it. You can buy an expensive ring in a few years but you can't have better photos taken of your wedding a few years later.
No one on here can tell if that was a huge CZ or a real diamond on that ring, and who really cares anyway? I'd rather look through a beautiful wedding book from a talented photographer of friends and family members any day, than look at a silly huge ring on a finger. And their children would rather look back at old family photos too than see the big ring on their mums finger, I'm sure.
That's my thoughts on the matter.
Feb 20, 2012 13:06:34 #
I taped over our wedding video with a football game (old VHS tape, not labeled). Yep me, the bride, taped over the video, man was my husband laughing his arse off at that one.
I also lost both my engagement ring and wedding band this year (16 years of marriage) for Christmas my hubby purchased me a new engagement ring, I'm hoping to find my wedding band and original engagement ring. They are in this house somewhere
Still have our wedding pictures in our wedding album... you tell me which was worth the money spent. lmao
I also lost both my engagement ring and wedding band this year (16 years of marriage) for Christmas my hubby purchased me a new engagement ring, I'm hoping to find my wedding band and original engagement ring. They are in this house somewhere
Still have our wedding pictures in our wedding album... you tell me which was worth the money spent. lmao
Feb 20, 2012 13:09:08 #
Feb 20, 2012 13:13:04 #
Feb 20, 2012 13:15:41 #
rpavich wrote:
As a consumer not a photographer, I'd rather have 50 breathtaking photos of my wedding than 500 crappy ones.
I think one breath taking one that you can hang on the wall.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.