The misconception continues Gottalaugh or I'm gonn cry!

Let's say for argument sake that the BRIDE is the star of the show. Well- all the marketing in the wedding industry is directed at the bride- ever see a Modern Groom Magazine" or a Groomal fair? they only have Bridal fairs! The groom is important as well and although parts and elders are not as involved in wedding planning as they used to be, they are all potential clients to satisfy and stimulate sales.

Regardless of that, most brides and grooms are not interested in the technicalities of photograhy, unless that is if they are enthusiasts or professional photographers themselves. They couldn't usually care less about flas usage, how bokeh is formed, or what make and type of equipment you use. If you rrepreset yourself as a professional, most folks will assume you have and use the right gear and you know how to use it. Folk respond to the way they appear in the images and the emotional content of those pictures.

I love available and existing light when it is available and when it exists. Otherwise, it's FLASH to the rescue. I lean to use multiple flashes at the wedding as a teenager- that was my first job as an assistant- manning the off-camera flash at the end of a monopod and I had to learn exactly where to place it while working on the fly. My mobile light could be the main light, a kicker, a light to extend the range of the on-camera flash to defeat the inverse square law. I was taught all the classic lighting forms at the studio- butterfly, loop, Rembrandt. split. kicker, background and hair lighting and learned to replicate all of these quickly by watching the photographer's movements, anticipating his actions and estimating the distance and placement in seconds- and all that with no modelling lights!. That how I learned how to shoot!

In a dark church or reception venue, I can't shoot everything at wide-open apertures and have little or no depth of field or run up the ISO to extremely nosy levels so I employ flash and these flash shots are no flat washed-out images with overexposed foregrounds and black-hole backgrounds. Some exposures are entirely flash dependent and others are blended perfectly with natural light and none of them have the telltale earmarks of poorly applied flash photography. If false is prohibited during the ceremony, I make do with available light and fine that a bit of "grain" or noise has an ethereal effect. At least, I can usually use my flash for the procession and the recessional!

Common sense check: If, If, may the Universe forbid, if you have to do a wedding re-shoot, you can just redo the formal portraits if the original set was unsatisfactory.

Quickie weddings? Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jump over the candlestick! Sorry about that but you know what just burns my backside? A 3-foot candle AND hastily planned weddings. Those can be a nightmare and a minefield to cover. If you only have a very short window of opportunity to shoot, you better be nimble and quick and have all your ducks in line. Even if the entire ceremony and reception take only one hour, why not tell the folks to spend another hour with you so, at least they will have a lifelong remembrance of the day regardless of the brevity of the event.

Peace to all. Stay safe, mask up, wash your hands, avoid riots and come out at the other end of Covid in good health and ready to resume life!

Spot on!!!

I shot weddings for around 20 years, and the prime requirement by the customers was the desire to have well-lit, posed, and sharply-focused photos. Yes, the bride is the centerpiece of the wedding, but she also has to understand the limits of what photography can accomplish. Yes, I could have blemishes retouched, eyes opened, and other improvements. However, I always did my reconnoitering of the church and reception locations before I had a final sit down with the bride and groom so they absolutely understood my capabilities. They also saw a fairly broad portfolio so they could make a relatively sound judgement of my talents.

The prime "weapon" in my arsenal was artificial light provided by electronic flash. My favorites in the 70's were the Honeywell Strobonars starting with the 700, right on up through the 880 class. I also used a small studio set up on location to get more artistic shots of the bride. The sanctuary and reception photos were always well-lit, and I never shot wide open apertures. I had been taught by a pro to use the old Weegee maxim of "f/11 and be there!" Shallow D-O-F also increases the chance of focus errors. A bit off at f/8 or f/11 can be salvaged. There were also available light opportunities, and I always used them when possible.

Yes, I had my share of "Bridezilla", but I was far more likely to deal with brides who were happy to have great photos of a one-time event. I did turn down business from Bridezillas, because I frankly didn't want the grief. And written into the contract, was a statement in which I retained all images shot by me, including the negatives. When I retired, I offered those negatives to clients, but never had a bite.

Over the years, I probably spent more on lighting than cameras. The folks at Speedotron, Lumedyne, and Quantum were lifesavers.