Shooting a friend's wedding

D

dancook

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,800
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
No
First up, I am not a professional photographer, let alone wedding photographer.

A friend who is engaged has said they would like me to shoot their wedding, another friend has said a similar thing but they have just started dating.. so that's a way off.

I explained that the idea of being the official photographer at a wedding seems very stressful. She tried to assure me, she would hold no expectations.

For just a moment though, I want to give it some thought and would appreciate advice.

I do love photography, in particular I've been drawn toward portraiture/candids at events, capturing moments that those people would like to keep. Which indeed would include weddings.. so it might be good for me, if a little scary.

My hardware, 5dM2, 85mm 1.2L II, 35mm 1.4 CZ Distagon - couple of flashes + transmitter.

Straight away I assume I'd need a backup body/second camera in case mine died. I'm sure her expectations mean at least 'some photos'.

Also would I manage with my two lenses?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'd definitely get a second body 100%

If you're comfortable with those two lenses then yes, I reckon you could shoot all day on those. You might want something a little longer if you're stuck at the back of a big church, or something a little wider for capturing stuff like, a large group shot, a wide venue shot and maybe dancing. I guess it's not until you know the lay of the land that you can decide whether you need anything else.

One extra tip - get a contract. I know they are friends and all, but I would get them to sign some terms so you both know what is expected. Setting expectations from the start is HUGE.
 
Thanks, I'll probably just end up using these as excuses not to do it ;) I like the lack of responsibility that comes with shooting wide open as a guest and it not matter if I don't get the shot ..
 
Last edited:
If money isn't changing hands, then there is no requirement for a contract i believe? You can just be an Uncle Bob :)
 
dancook said:
Thanks, I'll probably just end up using these as excuses not to do it ;) I like the lack of responsibility that comes with shooting wide open as a guest and it not matter if I don't get the shot ..
Click to expand...

ok, apart from my sig, I am not one for pimping my blog/website here very often, but as I only posted this yesterday and its very appropriate, you might want to let her read it whilst making your excuses to get out of it ;)

http://www.whitegoldimages.co.uk/should-i-ask-my-friend-to-take-my-wedding-photos/
 
I might just offer to be Uncle Bob, like the last friend's wedding. They were very happy with the photos, I had fun. They had a pro tog to cover the day too.

Thanks Yv :) I am happy to see the day behind a camera hah.. but yes avoid the responsibility of it falling on me!
 
Last edited:
I shot my first & last wedding on Saturday. Did it for the girlfriend's best friend after having my arm twisted. Originally I said no & get a Pro (same advice I gave to my best mate when he asked me to do his wedding. He took it & didn't regret it) but they couldn't afford one & was told it would be piccies on mobile phones only if I didn't. Guilt trip successfully triggered.

I made it clear though that although I was going to do the best I could not to expect professional results from me. Made it known that I had never shot one before & that it isn't an easy thing to do properly.

I took two cameras. A digital Nikon D3000 & a film Nikon F5 (only have one DSLR). Lenses used were a 17-55 on the digital (had a 55-200 but didn't use it) & a 28-105 on the F5. For film I used Kodak Portra 160. Wanted an excuse to try the new one as had only shot the old 160VC in the past.

I bought 4 cheap books on Wedding photography off of ebay & went through them & made a list of what pictures I needed to get. In the end I got them all. The priest was very cooperative. I went to the rehearsal the day before & had a chat with him & got his ground rules. Thought he was a great bloke to be honest. He introduced me to the congregation on the day as the photographer & asked them to wait for the confetti bombardment until I was ready.

Outcome. The bride & groom looked at the digital photographs the day after & seemed very happy. I think that are OK, but some could have been better. I think that the Nissin Di 622 Mk2 flash gun that I used with the digital wasn't quite up to what I asked it to do power wise. I haven't got the film back yet but used a better flashgun setup (A Nikon SB-28 with an SD 8 battery pack for faster recharge) so am hoping that film versions of the digital pictures that I am unhappy with will come out better. These are the pictures of the first dance that took place in a dark room. I duplicated these on film just to finish the roll. Am glad that I did.

I would say invest in a decent diffuser for your flashgun & practice daylight fill in flash in varying light conditions. Modern cameras are supposed to do it all for you but never having done much flash work I wanted to be sure. Also be aware of its limitations save falling into the same trap as me.

Also change the batteries in your flash after X amount of shots & don't wait for the recharge time to slow down. That was the motivation in getting the battery pack for the SB-28 but in the end I didn't feel confident shooting the whole wedding on film. Decided to go for the instant feedback of digital. If I only had a film camera I would probably have stuck to my guns & refused.

Did I enjoy the day? No & I found it quite stressful. Read all the horror stories of photographers being sued & couldn't get it out of my mind. I am so very relieved that the couple are happy with what I did.
 
Last edited:
DNH said:
I shot my first & last wedding on Saturday.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Does everyone start off stressed at the idea of it, do they just jump right in? People have got to start somewhere. Surely photographing a friend's wedding would be the start of a career for some, perhaps one of the few ways to get a portfolio started even.

I rocked my 85mm 1.2L on Saturday's wedding.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/sets/72157634274331485/

I'm not sure if I'd dare shoot in 1.2 if I was responsible for getting the shots! But the fact that I had that freedom, enabled me to have lots of fun.

Now if I had a 1dx I'd pump up the ISO/shutter speed and get more keepers :)
 
dancook said:
:lol:

Does everyone start off stressed at the idea of it, do they just jump right in? People have got to start somewhere. Surely photographing a friend's wedding would be the start of a career for some, perhaps one of the few ways to get a portfolio started even.

I rocked my 85mm 1.2L on Saturday's wedding.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/sets/72157634274331485/

I'm not sure if I'd dare shoot in 1.2 if I was responsible for getting the shots! But the fact that I had that freedom, enabled me to have lots of fun.

Now if I had a 1dx I'd pump up the ISO/shutter speed and get more keepers :)
Click to expand...

Nice set :)
 
dancook said:
:lol:

Does everyone start off stressed at the idea of it, do they just jump right in? People have got to start somewhere. Surely photographing a friend's wedding would be the start of a career for some, perhaps one of the few ways to get a portfolio started even.

I rocked my 85mm 1.2L on Saturday's wedding.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/sets/72157634274331485/

I'm not sure if I'd dare shoot in 1.2 if I was responsible for getting the shots! But the fact that I had that freedom, enabled me to have lots of fun.

Now if I had a 1dx I'd pump up the ISO/shutter speed and get more keepers :)
Click to expand...

Those images are great, better than I have seen many professional, dedicated wedding photographers charge a mountain of money for! Well, large mole,hill of it at least. Really nice, that lens does look awesome. If I ever went to the "dark side" I'd be adding that to the list. Of course it's not just the lens. You picked your spots, you got people's attention when desired, and the candies on top. If you approached wedding jobs, same as you did this wedding, you could make a killing.
 
Tizer said:
If money isn't changing hands, then there is no requirement for a contract i believe? You can just be an Uncle Bob :)
Click to expand...

If there is no consideration (payment) then there cannot be a contract. It's just an agreement.

Dervish99 said:
INSURANCE. *You might need to show PL insurance to a venue if you are the official tog.
Click to expand...

No need for this if your a non paid guest taking pictures.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Even if you were getting a bit of pocket money for it, it would be a very odd friendship if you thought you needed a contract.
An acquaintance, yes. But a "friend"?
 
the number of people who thought that - and then wound up posting here because there's a difference in expectations and the 'client' isn't happy is quite large.

if money is changing hands , then you need a contract, period

even if money isn't changing hands its wise to clarify expectations in writing, although that won't be a binding contract.

(also note that HMRC don't recognise the term 'a bit of pocket money' if you are getting paid they'll want a return - so if its a cash in hand no questions asked job, its best not to mention that on the interweb )
 
Cagey75 said:
Those images are great, better than I have seen many professional, dedicated wedding photographers charge a mountain of money for! Well, large mole,hill of it at least. Really nice, that lens does look awesome. If I ever went to the "dark side" I'd be adding that to the list. Of course it's not just the lens. You picked your spots, you got people's attention when desired, and the candies on top. If you approached wedding jobs, same as you did this wedding, you could make a killing.
Click to expand...

Well that's encouraging :) Thanks!
 
those are some nice shots - but did you pose the groups yourself , or did you shoot them while the pro was shooting , in usual uncle bob style ?

IMO successfully shooting a wedding is about 50% photographic skill , and 50% people skills - the ability to manage people, get them to pose, or move out of the way , smile/laugh ( I find getting them to shout "where's my pig" works - I nicked that from Daryl) and generally cooperate is probably the harder skill to learn

Also I'd note that this is harder at a wedding where the guests know you as they are more inclined to take the p and less inclined to cooperate - especially after a few beers.

None of which is relevant if you are just going to be an uncle bob - but if you are going to cover as main camera , its something to be aware of.
 
Cagey75 said:
Those images are great, better than I have seen many professional, dedicated wedding photographers charge a mountain of money for! Well, large mole,hill of it at least. Really nice, that lens does look awesome. If I ever went to the "dark side" I'd be adding that to the list. Of course it's not just the lens. You picked your spots, you got people's attention when desired, and the candies on top. If you approached wedding jobs, same as you did this wedding, you could make a killing.
Click to expand...

Individually these images are very nice. There is no doubt about it.

BUT. I'd take significant issue with the comment above. The set of images you have on Flikr would represent poor if not disastrous wedding coverage in any genre or style.

It took me a good 5 minutes to work out who the groom is, and for at least the first minute or so I was 50:50 on whether there was one at all. I think he is sitting next to the bride in a speeches shot. You have stunning images of the bride, and her friends, and some details but little else.

I appreciate that you were not hired to do the wedding - but you would need to be able to demonstrate that quality across bridal preps, the ceremony, some bride & groom images, family shots and first dance as well as much wider coverage of what you have shown to deliver a professional job - not just *some* professional quality images - and as you say with the confidence to reproduce that style when delivering those images mattered.

AND if you wanted to further lap up these comments and do it for real deliver that same quality of imagery across 20-50 weddings a year in all kinds of weather, at all types of venue, and with vastly different shapes, sizes and personalities of bride and groom. Being able to produce an end product from those images which might just be a disk of images - but may also be a well designed and put together storybook of the day.

That is the crux of being a professional wedding photographer - not being able to deliver 30 nice images from selected parts of one wedding. On their day a competent photographer, who knows the B&G and guests, will likely be able to shoot some photographs that a professional hired to cover the whole day won't get. That is a fact of life.

No criticism of your work which as I said up front is lovely. Just don't get carried away with some of the comments.
 
When it comes to wedding photography there will always be a vast gulf between "a lovely photo" and "a decent shot". The bride and groom are probably delighted at them but you'll get other people (mainly other photographers) telling you the composition was off, it's soft, bags under the eyes, blown out highlights etc etc. The trick is to learn from the criticism and enjoy the compliments.
 
big soft moose said:
IMO successfully shooting a wedding is about 50% photographic skill , and 50% people skills
Click to expand...

My father went further than that and suggested it was more like 20% photography and 80% people skills.

Luckilly, he was good at both!


Steve.
 
big soft moose said:
those are some nice shots - but did you pose the groups yourself , or did you shoot them while the pro was shooting , in usual uncle bob style ?
Click to expand...

All the photos were my own, except for 3 which I am in - which I had a friend, or even a guest I got on well to take the photo. I engaged people to take posed shots, I only knew 6 people at the wedding including my fiancee and the bride.

I didn't see much of the pro tog to be honest, I'm sure he went off with the bride and groom for photos - but in the evening he photographed the speeches then he was setting up a photo booth.
 
meonshore said:
No criticism of your work which as I said up front is lovely. Just don't get carried away with some of the comments.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I understand there's a lot more I'd have to do to shoot the wedding in it's entirety. Which is probably why I wouldn't want to spoil what I find to be a fun hobby :)

I'd be happy to shoot more wedding from the same position - I believe I'll have that chance.
 
Last edited:
meonshore said:
Individually these images are very nice. There is no doubt about it.

BUT. I'd take significant issue with the comment above. The set of images you have on Flikr would represent poor if not disastrous wedding coverage in any genre or style.

It took me a good 5 minutes to work out who the groom is, and for at least the first minute or so I was 50:50 on whether there was one at all. I think he is sitting next to the bride in a speeches shot. You have stunning images of the bride, and her friends, and some details but little else.

I appreciate that you were not hired to do the wedding - but you would need to be able to demonstrate that quality across bridal preps, the ceremony, some bride & groom images, family shots and first dance as well as much wider coverage of what you have shown to deliver a professional job - not just *some* professional quality images - and as you say with the confidence to reproduce that style when delivering those images mattered.

AND if you wanted to further lap up these comments and do it for real deliver that same quality of imagery across 20-50 weddings a year in all kinds of weather, at all types of venue, and with vastly different shapes, sizes and personalities of bride and groom. Being able to produce an end product from those images which might just be a disk of images - but may also be a well designed and put together storybook of the day.

That is the crux of being a professional wedding photographer - not being able to deliver 30 nice images from selected parts of one wedding. On their day a competent photographer, who knows the B&G and guests, will likely be able to shoot some photographs that a professional hired to cover the whole day won't get. That is a fact of life.

No criticism of your work which as I said up front is lovely. Just don't get carried away with some of the comments.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a narrow and traditional view of what wedding photos should consist of. I would rather look back at Dan's photos than the traditional cliched and tired shots (ring, aisle, group this and that). I had those sorts of shots from first wedding and never looked at them again as they bore me.

Not everyone wants the same thing but get your point that if it is your job you may have to be able to fit in with everyone else's perception of what wedding photos are meant to be (this would be the number one reason why I would never go near wedding photography with second reason being I find weddings very dull :))
 
My comments were honest and based on the images posted. He wasn't the pro tog on the day, so i wasn't going to nit pick who was missing or how they compare to the norm. They are great images. If he can do that we'll casually, I'm sure he'd make sure the groom was in plenty when doing the full job. I think that should go without saying. Not on here though, oh no. I don't see him "lap up" any comments, rather just say cheers ... basically. Nice shots are nice shots. And I have no doubt that if he can manage these [I like the processing too] he couls most certainly do a wedding, just grab a list of the usual boring shots the pros do to stick into the mix.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
the number of people who thought that - and then wound up posting here because there's a difference in expectations and the 'client' isn't happy is quite large.

if money is changing hands , then you need a contract, period

even if money isn't changing hands its wise to clarify expectations in writing, although that won't be a binding contract.

(also note that HMRC don't recognise the term 'a bit of pocket money' if you are getting paid they'll want a return - so if its a cash in hand no questions asked job, its best not to mention that on the interweb )
Click to expand...

this every time.

as someone who fell out with close friends over what was expected, get everything in writing.

also get P&L insurance either way, paid or not. if aunt fanny trips over your camera bag and breaks her hip, she isnt going to care if youre paid or not when she files a civil case asking for compo.
 
I think they're a great set of images and you should be pleased with them. They are certainly good enough quality wise as many pro's I have encountered. If you were to take things further, you would need to look at your style you want to achieve and ensure you get all the required shots on the day. With enough practice and time spent on learning these skills I think you are on a good footing.
 
neil_g said:
this every time.

as someone who fell out with close friends over what was expected, get everything in writing.

also get P&L insurance either way, paid or not. if aunt fanny trips over your camera bag and breaks her hip, she isnt going to care if youre paid or not when she files a civil case asking for compo.
Click to expand...
Surely this advice should apply to anyone bringing a bag to a wedding if it applies to anyone at all? Why would someone taking photos for their mate especially need insurance?
 
because they are performing a proffesional service - regardless of whether they are getting paid much- and therefore the venue may require them to have their own P/L rather than being covered under the venues own public liability as a normal guest would be.

(this doesnt apply to uncle bobs or GWC's, but does apply to anyone 'covering' the wedding as main camera regardless of payment even if its just for pocket money)

You can of course wing it , but imo its a stupid risk to run, when by the day insurance is so cheap, and the potential consequences so great , plus you may be asked for a P&L cert by the venue and refused admittance if you can't produce one
 
ghoti said:
Surely this advice should apply to anyone bringing a bag to a wedding if it applies to anyone at all? Why would someone taking photos for their mate especially need insurance?
Click to expand...

That's what I would have thought.

If someone at a venue trips over a bag, either owned by someone working there or a guest, The first place to sue for damages is the venue and their insurance will deal with it.

Part of that dealing might include trying to get their money back from whoever owned the bag but guests are not expected to have insurance and as a musician who plays at weddings, no venue has ever asked me for proof of insurance. And there's a lot more to go wrong with sound equipment than a few camera bags laying around.


Steve.
 
especially when you insist on setting your strat on fire at the end of each gig.
 
Steve Smith said:
Part of that dealing might include trying to get their money back from whoever owned the bag but guests are not expected to have insurance .
Click to expand...

Exactly - which is why uncle bob or any other guest with camera doesnt require it (and the venues insurer won't try to pursue it unless there was very clear negligence)

however someone being paid to provide a proffesional service (regardless of whether they asre being paid £5k or tuppence ha'pnenny) isnt a guest, and the venues insurance will seek to pass the liability on to them.

if that happens if you've paid a few quid for by the day insurance your arse is covered , if you decided to wing it to save a few quid you run the risk of losing your house ... its up to the individual to decide which way they'd rather go, but i know what i'd choose.
 
ernesto said:
You seem to have a narrow and traditional view of what wedding photos should consist of.
Click to expand...

Nope. I was trained traditionally and shot a season in that style for a studio but then spent 10 years shooting weddings in a contemporary style. With well over 250 weddings under my belt, and a well rounded appreciation of other peoples work both in the UK and worldwide, I'm just relaying my experience.

What I was talking about was breadth and depth of coverage - not a particular style. You can shoot the ceremony in a completely documentary modern style or only take the traditional types of images you allude to - limited to ring exchange, first kiss and a paused whilst walking back up the aisle.

The same with bridal preps which traditionally were more about staged photos on the couch with mum/dad/bridesmaids but in a more contemporary style are more about the actual preparations, and not about posed groups or portraits at all.

What you can't get away with for any real chance of shooting a season of weddings without any complaints are the core set of images that everyone - B&G, parents, grandparents expect to see. They might not be explicitly referenced by a B&G when they meet you - but they will be the first to complain if you don't deliver them no matter if you pitch yourself as a traditional, contemporary, fashion, documentary or "vintage"/"boho" wedding photographer.

Again this has nothing to do with a traditional or contemporary style - you can shoot a full length of the bride to showcase the dress in a multitude of ways but miss that, or the B&G together and you'll have complaints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top