bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I just hired a new girl under contract to be a second shooter, and was discussing our philosophy on wedding photography. I felt that it may be something to share with other aspiring wedding photographers on the Hog. If you aren't interested, just don't read it. I'm not really interested in all the comments about how you would NEVER want to shoot weddings. After over 30 years, I still get as excited as I did during my first few jobs. I'm trying to be helpful to those that are considering joining this rewarding part of photography.

I'm one that doesn't get offended by others wanting to jump into the wedding "biz." We generally have a few people that we are training to eventually become our competition, or maybe just to continue working with us.

We now have to compete with Craigslist Wedding Photographers that offer to shoot weddings for $200 and they give you the disk. Beyond the fact that in today's Wal-Mart mentality, makes it very difficult to convince people that you "get what you pay for," the fact is that the newer generation of photographers never had to watch costs.

We do offer the disk of "candid" photos from the reception, because those are mostly taken by our lowest tier of "employee" (contracted "3rd" shooters).... read: free interns that are shooting for us just to get the experience.

We also do include small digital files of any of the photos they purchase prints from us, as we found out that they would just scan the print and post it on facebook anyway, this way we can put a small "Olan Mills" type watermark in the corner to at least get some credit.

Here's the big issue that I think hurts all of us, and it is actually ruining wedding photographers everwhere, because people just don't end up actually displaying their wedding photos like they used to. That's probably a reason why people don't find wedding photos as "important" as they used to be.

I see wedding photographers that routinely snap 5000 images of a wedding. They even put the high numbers in their advertisements, like it is a great thing. We are old school film photographers that moved to digital, so we still choose our shots. Our average wedding starts with 500 shots or less, and that includes the reception "snap shots", and we cull out from there.

Do some of the machine gun photographers get outstanding images? I'm sure they do, I would just be overwhelmed if someone gave me a disk of 5000 images and asked me to find a "few to print" Ouch! I think that type of stuff is what is ruining the wedding business. I'm guessing after searching the disks that the photographer just burns and hands to the couple, it is burried in a drawer and not looked at again, or at least not very often.

Gone are the days of having a nice album set out on a table, and a few photos on the wall, and giving a few to their family. Now, they are just so overwhelmed, they just don't get around to choosing photos.

So, if you are planning on getting into the business, think of the end result before you ever push the shutter on the first image. We should all try to get back to working on quality, not just quantity and hoping a few are "wall hangers" Shoot for the album, shoot for the wall.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.

flyguy Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico

There's no doubt that the digital age of photography has been a game changer in myriad ways and not all to the good.

1stJedi Loc: Southern Orange County

I kinda liked your soap box.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Well written rant!

I'm old enough where I can list a variety of things that didn't adapt to change. Kodak is certainly one. The small aircraft industry I was in is another. A good friend in commercial printer equipment was in a third.

Last week I was in a camera shop where the owner had sold cameras, was a professional photographer and collected film cameras. He had tried to convert the store to a non-profit museum a couple years ago when he realized he income stream was evaporating. Now he's broke, has a thousand great cameras nobody wants and seems to be sleeping in the back of his store. It was very sad.

To your post, it seems that those getting married now are accustomed to rapidly changing content on screens. They've never lived without screens and now carry one or two 24/7. It may be that when they are old, the value of your work will be found in digital archives of some sort.

I've been married 47 years. We had a photographer who put the photos in a book. They are faded. We were never allowed access to negatives. He is long gone. I violated his copyright to scan, print and frame one from the book that sits permanently on a "night stand".

If the photographer or negative still existed, I'd probably pay about $100 to get a sharp, bright and fresh print.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Yup, I still have a fireproof file cabinet full of negatives, of course, they woudn't burn, but they'd still melt that go back as far as my first solo wedding in '84. I've moved out of state since then, so really, the chances of some of those people finding me are pretty slim, but I still save them, just in case. I'm actually surprised yours faded so bad. You have me beat, I was married in '86, but our book is still sharp and bright. I'm sure in the extra 20 years, like everything, paper evolved.

If one of my older couples from "way back then" scanned in and reprinted any of my photos, with an issue like yours, I sure wouldn't blame them. I'd just be thrilled to know that they are still married.

Shot one wedding, and found out that they split up 2 days afterwards, and had it anulled (spelling?) within 2 weeks. Ouch! Guess what, we didn't sell any extra images with that one. :-(

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

While I was attending college on the GI Bill from 1948 to 1952 I supplemented my monthly government family stipend of $50 by shooting events, plays, groups. etc. and making the prints in a tiny extra bedroom. One of my classmates decided she wanted me to do her Jewish wedding. I hesitated because I had no experience in that genre and knew nothing of the ceremonies, but she urged me and the money was enough to persuade me. It went off well enough and while the couple was on their honeymoon I completed the album. On their return she notified me that she had filed for divorce! My heart sank as I thought of my investment but she reassured me that she still wanted the album "as a memory of a horrible experience!"

GPoyner Loc: North Dakota

I think it goes beyond just weddings; I see it in dance competitions - they just take tons of photos not knowing what they are shooting and dump them on their sites. I have ran across many that are blurred and out of focus; not counting the ones that show a dancer in mid step which is never good. But their prices are not cheap and some even outrages for the quanity of the photo. Thanks GP

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

Yes, going back to the '80s, you're OK. Prior to the early '50s, don't be too sure about film not burning. There was "cellulose nitrate film" - I wouldn't have known about that, except for a story my Dad told once: he was visiting a client, client was smoking a cigar and while looking at the images on the film, the hanging end of the film touched the "business end" of the cigar. Apparently the film completely burned in very short order. I don't know if this kind of film is still around, I certainly don't have any, but if anyone reading this does, here's a helpful leaflet:
http://www.bundesarchiv.de/imperia/md/content/abteilungen/abtfa/filmtechnik_konservierung_restaurierung/2.pdf

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I think that many cannot afford a photographer that has a 3rd shooter. If you can find folks that do more power to you. - Dave

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Don't misread the 3rd shooter. That is how we we start interns....unpaid, so we don't charge the client for the 3rd person. They come to us asking to intern and learn, and we mentor them for a while while they give us their images. After 3-4 weddings, they end up on our list of second shooters that we hire when we need someone.

Because it is no longer my only source of income, and hasn't been for years, our prices are fairly low, (not the $200 bracket, but average $750-$1000) Not much when you split it 2 ways, and no way I'd split it 3 ways. Weddings are as exhausting as they are fun.

Hourly, I make much more money doing portrait work, but weddings are just plain my passion.

amehta Loc: Boston

I like your soapbox, it is good for a few more rants like this too! :-)

Any time I am shooting sports (usually volleyball), the second question I get asked is whether I am shooting continuous, and the answer is always no. I have enough trouble going through 200 pics from a match to get the ones worth posting, I don't want to deal with 2000!

I wonder if today's wedding photographer needs to sell to the mothers even more than before?

eospaddy Loc: Liverpool UK

[quote=bkyser]I just hired a new girl under contract to be a second shooter, and was discussing our philosophy on wedding photography. I felt that it may be something to share with other aspiring wedding photographers on the Hog. If you aren't interested, just don't read it. I'm not really interested in all the comments about how you would NEVER want to shoot weddings. After over 30 years, I still get as excited as I did during my first few jobs. I'm trying to be helpful to those that are considering joining this rewarding part of photography.

I'm one that doesn't get offended by others wanting to jump into the wedding "biz." We generally have a few people that we are training to eventually become our competition, or maybe just to continue working with us.

We now have to compete with Craigslist Wedding Photographers that offer to shoot weddings for $200 and they give you the disk. Beyond the fact that in today's Wal-Mart mentality, makes it very difficult to convince people that you "get what you pay for," the fact is that the newer generation of photographers never had to watch costs.

We do offer the disk of "candid" photos from the reception, because those are mostly taken by our lowest tier of "employee" (contracted "3rd" shooters).... read: free interns that are shooting for us just to get the experience.

We also do include small digital files of any of the photos they purchase prints from us, as we found out that they would just scan the print and post it on facebook anyway, this way we can put a small "Olan Mills" type watermark in the corner to at least get some credit.

Here's the big issue that I think hurts all of us, and it is actually ruining wedding photographers everwhere, because people just don't end up actually displaying their wedding photos like they used to. That's probably a reason why people don't find wedding photos as "important" as they used to be.

I see wedding photographers that routinely snap 5000 images of a wedding. They even put the high numbers in their advertisements, like it is a great thing. We are old school film photographers that moved to digital, so we still choose our shots. Our average wedding starts with 500 shots or less, and that includes the reception "snap shots", and we cull out from there.

Do some of the machine gun photographers get outstanding images? I'm sure they do, I would just be overwhelmed if someone gave me a disk of 5000 images and asked me to find a "few to print" Ouch! I think that type of stuff is what is ruining the wedding business. I'm guessing after searching the disks that the photographer just burns and hands to the couple, it is burried in a drawer and not looked at again, or at least not very often.

Gone are the days of having a nice album set out on a table, and a few photos on the wall, and giving a few to their family. Now, they are just so overwhelmed, they just don't get around to choosing photos.

So, if you are planning on getting into the business, think of the end result before you ever push the shutter on the first image. We should all try to get back to working on quality, not just quantity and hoping a few are "wall hangers" Shoot for the album, shoot for the wall.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.[/quote

i have only been shooting for 3 years seriously as a armature of course and i would love to shoot a wedding and get paid but i think i would be as you said be a machine gun photographer ( nice quote ) hoping there would be a few decent ones among the many and that is not fair to the couple getting married very amateurish, photography is not easy ! those well caught moments that would be hung on your wall or in a album, but easier said than done and i never had the privileged to shoot film where you had to think each shot through very carefully and you only had a limited amount of shots so missing out on the film age is a shame on my part but i do get your point shoot less and be more selective because the thought of a wedding disc with 5000 images would be so not right ! like you said how could u ever choose and who's going to sit through that many pics when showing your big day off ! thank you for a very interesting read

amehta Loc: Boston

When shooting film, photographers had to be careful out of necessity. You get to be careful because it makes your photography better. :-)

The problem with "machine gun" or "spray and pray" photography isn't just that you have too many pictures, but that you also often miss the good shots. You aren't looking for the special moments, so they happen without you being ready to photograph them. If someone is going to be a machine gun wedding photographer, they should simply offer to take video instead.

juanderfulpics Loc: central jersey

Love your post
100% correct on all points
I actually see many just buy a camera and do it themselves
Then I actually enjoy looking at their catastrophe

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Sure makes you wonder what went on during that honeymoon! I wonder what got revealed to her about the groom that she had not figured out previously?:shock: I'm glad she had the integrity to keep her end of the deal with you.