Wedding shots, really not that important??

dazzajl

dazzajl

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,993
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, I'm in a somewhat cheeky mood but this has been a thought that crops up every time I wade through pages of threads where good folks are told they don't appreciate how difficult it is to take wedding shots and how important they are.

Now I'm well known for top quality pish and these are just my own thoughts but it's all well walloped cods, surely?

I know lots of people that are or have been married. Even tried it myself. I've never seen anyones wedding album and I doubt I ever will. Most of these hallowed volumes sit in drawers gathering dust until the statistical likelihood that they taken out and binned in the divorce.

Most people shooting a wedding take a million shots anyway, so there is going to be one for the wall, even if the snapper is blind AND incompetent. Also, as photographers we might not like it but it's a fact that the average bride cares more about the colour of the napkins than the everlasting images we give so many column inches too here.

I'm not saying wedding photography isn't great. Hang on, yes I should be. Most of it is of an appallingly low standard, so perhaps we should alter the advice that's given out a little. Perhaps, "sure go along with a compact. Try to get everyones eyes open and have fun" is more appropriate.

Of course just because most shots are woefully bad and no-one really cares anyway doesn't mean there aren't good shooters out there. There are some folks here (you know who you are) that produce intimate fine art images week in, week out that are a joy to behold but that's the exception proving the rule, yes?
 
Whoa.....utmost respect for having the balls to post that up.........:lol:
 
I do know that when a dusty wedding album falls off a shelf and hits you on the head it hurts

Wish we had settled on just one or two snaps, wouldn't have hurt as much
 
I once worked out that most wedding albums were viewed about a half a dozen times. When they get it, when they get home, a few days later to show somebody, when aunty mary comes to visit, the first aniversary, when cutting out the partner after the divorce.
Cynical... yes, but don't tell the bride and groom, they pay my morgage.
 
I get where you are coming form and I think quite a few clients would too. I am actually thinking of offering a package that is a basic 2hr coverage, limited to 25 images to capture those who agree that they only really want a small documentation of the event... of course personally I will be striving to create 25 fine art treasures for them :-)
 
Crap.

We've pictures from our wedding in frames and have looked at and shown our wedding album many times.

And when children come along they look at them too.

I know I've fallen into your trap, you're talking **** for the sake of a reaction.

Bam! There's a reaction :)
 
I photographed a family get together recently, it seems the Grandfather does not have long to live. I was mesmorised by their very well thumbed Wedding Album - from 1953, it was gorgeous, stunning images and very well put together. We create memories that do truly last a lifetime giving people the chance to have an insight into the family history. Everyone more than entitled to an opinion though.
 
Really? Been married 20 years and have never looked at the album, don`t even know where it is. The important thing lives with me still, is the mother of our kids and is my rock. I don`t need a poxy album to know that, nor does she..................:thumbs:
 
Ours are all up on a high shelf and looked at 2-3 times at most! We have none framed and the DVD has been hidden in case my father in law comes round and tries to make us watch it. I kind of agree with you tbh!
 
After instant discussion with Ma Frac, i`m wrong,she looks at it as do offspring...........My mistake and my tads are now sore.......:gag:
 
we got a dvd with all our shots on and i did a couple of massive montages of our wedding photos, they are up along the hallway. i also made a coffee table book, and it lives on the top of the table...

but then..... we have only been married six months :) lol
 
Ive been married 2 years in November, and the last time I looked at the album was about 6 months ago. I dont look at mine that often, but its nice to have and nice to see the pictures. I have a couple of photos on the wall, but not many in all fairness.
 
I was married for 13 years, I only looked at the album a few times and I think one of those was last year just before I burned it LOL.

I look at my Mum and Dads wedding photo's now and again in wonderment as to how they managed to do the Until death us do part for 38 years. :D

Oh any they didn't have an album, just a mate with a Box Brownie :D
 
BarryG said:
Crap.

We've pictures from our wedding in frames and have looked at and shown our wedding album many times.

And when children come along they look at them too.

I know I've fallen into your trap, you're talking **** for the sake of a reaction.

Bam! There's a reaction :)
Click to expand...

There is no trap Barry and pish is just my native tongue. ;)

The first post does say "most" albums and it's good to know that some people do actually take the time to look at real, physical photographs but I'll stand by the comment that it's not many.

Also, us lot here are more likely to be interested in looking at piccys than most. Do you think that the average person needs top quality images to remember their day, or just a factual reminder of who wore what and where?
 
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you can't charge a couple of grand for a handful of snaps taken on a compact... ;)
 
Never had an album. Just a load of 7x5 prints. Never looked at them after much. Going through a divorce atm after 16 years. The OP may have a point! :shrug:
 
Been on the Scotch Darren? ;)

In all seriousness, I actually agree. Especially when it comes to the arty stuff we all do - you know it, champagne bottle pin sharp - party going on in lovely bokeh background? Total mung, a few years after the event NO-ONE will give the remotest toss.

What they do and should care about is that it's a record of the day and of the people that were there and sharing in it - the rest can rot!

Shame, because at least the Champagne bottle doesn't blink or pull funny faces... ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you can't charge a couple of grand for a handful of snaps taken on a compact... ;)
Click to expand...

i don't do wedding shots but if i did they'd probably be the most expensive wedding shots in the world. ;)
 
Last edited:
dazzajl said:
I'm not saying wedding photography isn't great. Hang on, yes I should be. Most of it is of an appallingly low standard
Click to expand...

This is the only issue I have with your post, whether you're fishing or not I don't know, but it's well wide of the mark and a bit disrespectful to a lot of togs who have put years of effort into the industry. I understand to an extent where you're coming from, but to say 'most' of it is appalling is wrong.

Ignoring that comment though, I'd say that the era of social networking means that the wedding tog is in more demand now than they ever have been. Regardless of how often people will look at their own wedding album, we're in the Facebook age where people demand to see pictures, and the bride wouldn't want to disappoint with crap images would they? Showing off your wedding photos to others comes first these days, with keeping them just for your own enjoyment a distant second. That's not the case for everyone of course, but I'd say it is for most people.
 
Don't most photo's either sit in an album in the loft or saved on a p.c wedding or otherwise .. Surly it's about capturing a moment in time that can be looked at at anytime you want .. I have loads of photo's i would like framed or on canvas , the problem i have is a small house with little room to display what i would like ..

yes people split up , so not only does the wedding album end up on a tip , fire or round the back of someone's head ... But photo's that couple took together end up in the bin ... At least when someone splits up there might be two more weddings on the way , so someone gets paid again :thumbs:
 
santana007 said:
At least when someone splits up there might be two more weddings on the way , so someone gets paid again :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Finally there is some positive attitude in the thread :thumbs:
 
I've been married over twenty five years and the only time the album gets an airing is when it needs to be pointed out to someone that I used to be slim -sigh.

Anniversary's go past without a mention these days. And the album is testament that hiring a pro on the cheap is not a good idea. But it was a long time ago.

It's all part of the 'experience', so if you can bring a little professionalism and style into their lives, go for it.

Graham
 
Some couples seem to be happy to pay for a cake they cut once and see a few times on the day they get married and also taste once. They give the rest out for free.

Those people by comparison get a good deal from most photographers regardless of the standard - an album for life of their happy day, with a picture of the cake inside too :)
 
But the one time you eat the cake it's a lot tastier than the photos will ever be...
 
Moos3h said:
Been on the Scotch Darren? ;)
Click to expand...

Oddly if I had I'd have probably thought better of wasting more internet space on things that aren't going to change. ;)


it's well wide of the mark and a bit disrespectful to a lot of togs who have put years of effort into the industry. I understand to an extent where you're coming from, but to say 'most' of it is appalling is wrong.
Click to expand...

I really do feel that the majority is way off the standard of work we see from some of the members here. But then part of what I'm saying is that it doesn't need to be great if all it's for is too see what aunty betty looked liked and what the dress was like. Which links back to the question of why are people so precious about it when the key is just to get a record of the day?

As a snapper and an artist I'm all for people spending large amounts of money on totally unnecessary art for arts sake but when bill, joan or whoever posts up here saying I'm photographing a mates wedding, it really doesn't need to be treated like a big deal.
 
I have my wifes Grandads album at the moment, and recently scanned a couple of shots and had them framed for him. Grandma died more than 10 years ago, and the album is 60 yrs old. It is very well thumbed and well loved.

I just thnk people have different feelings about them at different times in their lives and appreciate them as time moves on.
 
fracster said:
Really? Been married 20 years and have never looked at the album, don`t even know where it is. The important thing lives with me still, is the mother of our kids and is my rock. I don`t need a poxy album to know that, nor does she..................:thumbs:
Click to expand...

And yet you still did get a wedding album done!

I believe that until a whole new technology replacing photography comes out, regardless of whether we want or need a wedding album, it's simply the done thing and will continue to be so. If people can profit on this then best of luck to them - take advantage whilst you can I say!
 
Lol. I do sort of agree with what Daz is saying here- well quite a lot actually. As I've said many times, years later, the one shot everyone makes a beeline for is the large group shot which is the really interesting one, and the one many couples don't want taking these days.

Perhaps we're missing the point though, and the people who will really appreciate the shots will be their kids and grand kids long after they've gone. Whether they'll be overly critical of the quality though is highly doubtful. :D
 
Agree with CT - the big group. Or maybe a few smaller groups if you can't get them all in. That's it really.

A lot of the other stuff is just professionals justifying their fee and creating extra sales - most of it entirely fake. Signing the register is usually fake, putting on rings, cutting the cake - all staged for the camera. The bride being made up (what?), close up of shoes, bridemaids being all pretty and girly and the groom and his mates being foolishly boyish. Then there's gazing into eachother's eyes with the sunset, absolutely staged. And finally, trash the dress, usually by wandering into a lake absentmindedly. I wonder who thought of that one.

The whole thing is rigged by the Master of Ceremonies, the photographer, to make money.
 
It is customer driven

With us the customer has a choice how long we work. We can do exactly what we were doing 20 years ago - shoot for about a hour and produce an album with 12-20 photographs... or shoot all day, and produce the usual mass of photographs - customers choice. In the main they hire us all day

So if you hire me all day, I recon in total that generates me nearly a weeks worth of work -if you include processing, office time, editing time, backups etc.. Bearing this in mind, what would it cost to hire a mechanic, plumber, brickie or most other people for the same amount of time - probably very similar to what we would charge

In all industries there is a level of bull and mystique, and the one in ours is that wedding photographers are loaded, and dont do much for the money. I would argue that only applies to very few. The other areas revolve around kit, and processes - there seems to be a high level of "my gun is better then his gun" The elitist views of some are wholey self serving... In saying that, in the main, most wedding photographers work damn hard for the money, and have perfectly adequate kit

I actually charge exactly the same rate for wedding photography - per days shoot, as I do for anything else (i.e. product shoot)

If the customer chooses to squirrel the album away in a draw, that's entirely their choice

On my website I labour the point about "hanging it on the wall". I sell other products mounted fine art and silver prints, and real art painted by artists mainly because these will actually make it onto a wall. We have had a couple of clinets order a painting, a box set of fine art prints, a few mounted and framed silver prints and a small 12 page album - in this instance, the images are for sure going to be seen day in day out
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you can't charge a couple of grand for a handful of snaps taken on a compact... ;)
Click to expand...

Yo ! Just read this sitting in Arrivals at Heathrow. Laughing my cobs off. Men in White Coats on approach.....later....get your hands off me !
 
trevorbray said:
HoppyUK said:
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you can't charge a couple of grand for a handful of snaps taken on a compact... ;)
Click to expand...




Yo ! Just read this sitting in Arrivals at Heathrow. Laughing my cobs off. Men in White Coats on approach.....later....get your hands off me !
Click to expand...

Dunno We got married on a P&O ship and the top weddings photo package would be about £2k and not far off what we wanted, problem was the quality of piccies, I do not kid when I say the quality was no better than what is on my canon 20D after giving it to a 4 year old in full auto mode at the reception (at least she checked for blinks and came over to hit you with the camera if your eyes were shut!).
 
I'm doing my first wedding in a fortnight, for free (in fact I'll probably give them an album as a wedding gift), for a couple who are long term friends.

I'm doing it as a dSLR owner, not a photographer. I made that very clear to them when they asked me, they weren't going to have a wedding album but asked me to take a few pics on the day, and they 'love' my photography style apparently.

I've been practising in the venue and have visited it 3 times now, have a list of all the places they want pics taken, who they want pics of, have rented a decent fast lens and am nervous as hell.

If this is what all you guys go through, on a daily/weekly basis then hats off to you. Would I ever consider doing it full-time? We'll see after the wedding, but I know now that it's a hell of a lot easier earning decent money in the job I'm in, rather than the job Pro Wedding Togs do.

However I work in the Construction Industry so redundancy might not be far off, and I quite fancy the Canon 5D MkII.... ;-)
 
Last edited:
trevorbray said:
I really do feel that the majority is way off the standard of work we see from some of the members here.
Click to expand...

That's not to say that the majority of wedding togs are of a poor standard, it's just that the likes of Guy, Simon, Colin etc have an exceptional talent which is way above and beyond what a good tog produces. Wedding photographers in general can't be compared to these guys, it's like saying the majority of footballers are crap because they can't produce what Messi does week in week out.
 
My wedding album has been viewed many times. We also have framed prints around the house. I know where the album is, there are some pictures in there that I hold most dearly. Maybe it's because there are pictures of people who have now passed away and seeing them looking happy and having fun helps me to remember them. My uncle for instance was the vicar that married us, he passed away from stomach cancer 18 months after we were married, and it is the last time the whole family were together before he was diagnosed.

Our album is very reportage though, as this is my preferred style. So seeing natural un-posed photos conveys the atmosphere of the day, and the enjoyment on peoples faces.

I suppose it depends on what your view of marriage is, for us it was a day filled with joy and celebration, and one I would like to remember as best as possible. If you take the cynics view on everything, then why bother with photos of anything at all!
 
lol hang on!!! People pay a fortune on a dress, on a cake, on the reception, on the cars, on the flowers, on the drink etc (i know i am getting married next year) why is it the wedding tog getting the hard time? If someone pays over the odds for a poor photographyer thats thier fault, they are the incompitent ones for not doign their homework. I went to see about 6 and think we got the best one for the money we wanted to spend (just over £1000) on the grand scheme of things its a pretty small part of the whole wedding.

As for it being difficult to take wedding photos its like everythign else it it gets easier with experience and confidence, I would say a tog doing his first few weddings is pretty tough if they are wanting to produce top qaulity images. You could argue that wedding photography is a hell of a lot more difficult than say studio work. In a studio EVERYthing can be controlled and the time taken to perfect what out come you want, basically achieve perfection. At a wedding you are tired by time, the cooperation of the guests, the weather, the lighting etc. To be honest I dont agree with anything the OP says, if someone wants to spend money on a wedding able whats the big deal? :cuckoo:

By the way I aint a wedding photographer :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top