- Messages
- 6,793
- Name
- Les
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I normally run a mile if anyone mentions shooting a wedding, it's one of the hardest genres of photography out there , as I've often said, you not only need to be a competent photographer, but also a referee, social worker, psychologist, crowd controller, cheerleader, best friend and chief bottle washer.
For a variety of reasons, yesterday I ended up being the main photographer at a wedding, and after wading through the images this morning, made me realise just how much easier it was pre-digital.
From the wedding, there are over 300 images, and after purging the most obvious bad'uns, it will leave me with around 250 images to process, and although I've kept the settings pretty much consistent throughout (white balance/flash etc) and even though I can batch process some of the processing, it's still a day's work selecting, cropping, renumbering, uploading to a web gallery, putting together A DVD presentation, copying files to CD, arranging/ordering Wedding Albums etc etc.
Many, many years ago when I was a skint student (aren't students always skint ?), I used to shoot 2x36 rolls of film, send them off to a pro-lab for processing, the only labour intensive part of processing was numbering the prints and slipping them into a proof album (an hours work), and then ordering completed wedding albums from the lab (another hour or so's work).
So much for progress :bonk::bonk:
And it always amazes me, because you are maybe a competent landscape photographer say, folk assume you will be the best person to shoot their wedding. It's like asking Mo Farah to turn out for Yorkshire Cricket Club because he's pretty good at sports.
For a variety of reasons, yesterday I ended up being the main photographer at a wedding, and after wading through the images this morning, made me realise just how much easier it was pre-digital.
From the wedding, there are over 300 images, and after purging the most obvious bad'uns, it will leave me with around 250 images to process, and although I've kept the settings pretty much consistent throughout (white balance/flash etc) and even though I can batch process some of the processing, it's still a day's work selecting, cropping, renumbering, uploading to a web gallery, putting together A DVD presentation, copying files to CD, arranging/ordering Wedding Albums etc etc.
Many, many years ago when I was a skint student (aren't students always skint ?), I used to shoot 2x36 rolls of film, send them off to a pro-lab for processing, the only labour intensive part of processing was numbering the prints and slipping them into a proof album (an hours work), and then ordering completed wedding albums from the lab (another hour or so's work).
So much for progress :bonk::bonk:
And it always amazes me, because you are maybe a competent landscape photographer say, folk assume you will be the best person to shoot their wedding. It's like asking Mo Farah to turn out for Yorkshire Cricket Club because he's pretty good at sports.
Last edited:
Im being bullied into a wedding in september ( the shooting of not getting married bit 
)
)