Wedding Photography

Jase

Jase

Messages
1,545
Edit My Images
No
Not sure if this is the best section to post in but.....

I've been asked recently to do a couple of wedding, my immediate reply was no!

But I've been thinking maybe I should not dismiss it (they were willing to pay), and it will be a new challenge. But a bit of a background:

My Dad was a wedding photographer and I used go with him to weddings (to carry a bag etc!). Anyway I always remember how much hassle it was getting people to do what he wanted, trying to round up the family etc etc and then the pressure of him going home and developing the photos in the darkroom ready to be put in the newspaper a couple of days later (yes we're talking film days).

Obviously the pressure of film is no longer there and I get the feeling that wedding photography is a lot more relaxed now.

If I was to change my mind any advice?

I'm more equipped for landscapes than portraits ie I don't really have any primes for portraits or much in the way of lighting apart from a couple of speedlights. Although I did notice on the last wedding I went to (as a guest) the photographer pretty much used a 24-70 (or 24-105) all day apart from the wide group shots. What's the minimum I could get away with?
 
There are literally thousands of posts on here from people who have asked the accept same question. The search option is in the top right hand corner.
 
I would say do smaller occasions like parties etc first to build your level of experience first. However if the couple genuinely have no expectations of getting a Ferrari for the price of a Skoda then why not. Preparation and planning will go a long way to reducing your stress levels so having enough time to learn techniques and practice them will go a long way. A 24-70 plus an 85mm would in my opinion be a good starting point.
 
f/2.8 said:
There are literally thousands of posts on here from people who have asked the accept same question. The search option is in the top right hand corner.
Click to expand...

Very helpful thank you

Mintchocs said:
I would say do smaller occasions like parties etc first to build your level of experience first. However if the couple genuinely have no expectations of getting a Ferrari for the price of a Skoda then why not. Preparation and planning will go a long way to reducing your stress levels so having enough time to learn techniques and practice them will go a long way. A 24-70 plus an 85mm would in my opinion be a good starting point.
Click to expand...

The first couple just like photos and the (few) portraits I have done which I would have used a 24-70 or 70-200. I'm not so sure it's the technique bit but maybe the preparation and more to the point if I have enough patience to deal with guests!

Maybe there's not a simple answer to this, maybe just a try or not case.
 
I shoot with two fxnikons ! One with a 50 mm 1.8 and swap with a 20-35 2.8 and a second body with 80-200 2.8
 
Mintchocs said:
I would say do smaller occasions like parties etc first to build your level of experience first.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. A family member has asked me to do their wedding, something I've had no prior experience with.
In the meantime I'll be papping the crap out of my friends down the pub, do a test shoot with the happy couple and annoying relatives at family gatherings
 
Jase said:
Obviously the pressure of film is no longer there and I get the feeling that wedding photography is a lot more relaxed now.
Click to expand...


WOW haha

I have been in exactly the same position.. I do have the equipment and i could find paid weddings to do.... But it's more you the photogrpaher.. it's only more relaxed if you are.. Personally "Relaxed" is the last word i would use ... i wouldn't touch a wedding with a bargepole.. but thats me..
 
The good news is that, if your kit list is up-to-date, you have more than enough kit needed to produce a decent result. You also have some decent portraits in your portfolio.

You say no primes but you have with the X-T2. I'd use the two Nikon bodies with a 24-70 & 70-200 to cover most of the work (with the 12-24 in your pocket for wides) and the Fuji for portraits.

Your biggest problem is going to be knowing how a wedding flows and people management (posing). That takes skill and experience.

I'd approach some local photographers and beg them to let you assist/shadow for a day or two - NOT second shoot. If you are second shooting, you can't follow what the primary is doing.

Given that you haven't much experience in the field, I'd suggest shooting for expenses only to limit your liability. You also must have a contract in place outlining the couples expectations and denoting your own limitations (yes, even if it is for free).
 
I’ll start with a question; do you like people?

Gear is pretty much irrelevant, so long as you can use it to create images good enough to deliver.

The difference between the weddings you helped your dad with and a modern wedding is like the difference between a 70’s dinner party of prawn cocktail Spag Bol and tiramisu from the freezer and an episode of Nigella.

There’s no ‘panic’ to get to the darkroom to see whether your pictures are OK, but there’s long day’s carrying heavy gear, herding cats for the formals and dealing with obnoxious drunk arseholes that your dad would never have seen.

It’s a long gig, requiring a lot of organisational skills, with enough gear for redundancy, with hectic periods and lulls, and can be the greatest fun you’ll have with a camera...

If your answer to the opening question was an enthusiastic ‘Yes’, then go for it. If it wasn’t, then personally I wouldn’t bother, the money is OK, but the hassle will quickly sour it.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I’ll start with a question; do you like people?

Gear is pretty much irrelevant, so long as you can use it to create images good enough to deliver.

The difference between the weddings you helped your dad with and a modern wedding is like the difference between a 70’s dinner party of prawn cocktail Spag Bol and tiramisu from the freezer and an episode of Nigella.

There’s no ‘panic’ to get to the darkroom to see whether your pictures are OK, but there’s long day’s carrying heavy gear, herding cats for the formals and dealing with obnoxious drunk arseholes that your dad would never have seen.

It’s a long gig, requiring a lot of organisational skills, with enough gear for redundancy, with hectic periods and lulls, and can be the greatest fun you’ll have with a camera...

If your answer to the opening question was an enthusiastic ‘Yes’, then go for it. If it wasn’t, then personally I wouldn’t bother, the money is OK, but the hassle will quickly sour it.
Click to expand...

Guess I'll be giving it a miss then :)
 
I find weddings are as 'relaxed' as you make them (and advertise yourself). I've spent a lot of time on my website wording and have it nailed now with regards to attracting exactly the sort of clients who I'll click with. More often than not my brides are early (never late) and it's a super chilled day even if things inevitably go wrong (cakes collapsing, people falling ill etc).

There are always moments of stress but I find those remarkably infrequent if you're well prepared (spare gear, know the venue layout etc). I would never say a wedding is east as I know I have huge room for improvement, but it's certainly nothing like the horror story I assumed it would be.

Across a 10 hour day I'll probably do less than two minutes of herding despite averaging 5-10 group shots, I always make it clear that somebody needs to be on hand to gather people up and everyone is fine with that.
 
Last edited:
Jase said:
Not sure if this is the best section to post in but.....

I've been asked recently to do a couple of wedding, my immediate reply was no!

But I've been thinking maybe I should not dismiss it (they were willing to pay), and it will be a new challenge. But a bit of a background:

My Dad was a wedding photographer and I used go with him to weddings (to carry a bag etc!). Anyway I always remember how much hassle it was getting people to do what he wanted, trying to round up the family etc etc and then the pressure of him going home and developing the photos in the darkroom ready to be put in the newspaper a couple of days later (yes we're talking film days).

Obviously the pressure of film is no longer there and I get the feeling that wedding photography is a lot more relaxed now.

If I was to change my mind any advice?

I'm more equipped for landscapes than portraits ie I don't really have any primes for portraits or much in the way of lighting apart from a couple of speedlights. Although I did notice on the last wedding I went to (as a guest) the photographer pretty much used a 24-70 (or 24-105) all day apart from the wide group shots. What's the minimum I could get away with?
Click to expand...

It's not more relaxed IMHO, everybody has a camera and tries to get in the way, guests are more interested in getting rat arsed than sparing the bride and goom 20 mins for pics, and you now have the litigation culture of sue over everything (including the cake facing the wrong way around)
Kit wise being honest pretty much any modern camera is good enough, yes I know people will say you need a canixon27d with a 2 foot sensor but the truth is your mostly printing A4 size and the odd A0 canvas, any modern camera can produce that no problem, if you need massive crops your not getting close enough to start with.
Just a word of caution, if your getting paid, remember people will have expectations and you will have grief if you can't produuce the goods.
 
You are much braver than I am even considering taking on a wedding with no experience! Even if it's for free there will be expectations, and I wouldn't want that much pressure on my first outing.

If you go for it, good luck and I hope all goes well :)
 
The wedding industry is more competetive now, if you're wanting to really get into it then finding someone who you aspire to be like (in a business sense as well as visually) and getting mentoring from them could be a great idea.

I'd avoid any associations though if i'm honest, but that's just my personal experience :)
 
Your lens choice is more about your shooting style

But 24-70, 14-24 covers most things... and something longer (70 -200) for candids and some headshots.

If you had 2 bodies with 14 - 70mm covered you will probably get to the end of the day not feeling like you missed anything

Primes are nice to have, but mot must have
 
I have shot a couple of weddings, mainly family and close friends, and they have been small affairs.

The last one was the first wedding for my Fuji kit, and it was shot using the 16mm & 35mm f1.4 primes, and the 50-140 f2.8. I had a quick word with the B&G to go over what they wanted, and then shot some of what I wanted to shoot.

I must say, @DG Phototraining has always caught my eye in what he delivers, so have a look at some of his work if you really want to see what a very good wedding photographer will produce.
 
Jelster said:
I must say, @DG Phototraining has always caught my eye in what he delivers, so have a look at some of his work if you really want to see what a very good wedding photographer will produce.
Click to expand...

Thanks - that's nice and unexpected lol

For others' info - no money has passed here :D

Dave
 
Jase said:
Not sure if this is the best section to post in but.....

I've been asked recently to do a couple of wedding, my immediate reply was no!

But I've been thinking maybe I should not dismiss it (they were willing to pay), and it will be a new challenge. But a bit of a background:

My Dad was a wedding photographer and I used go with him to weddings (to carry a bag etc!). Anyway I always remember how much hassle it was getting people to do what he wanted, trying to round up the family etc etc and then the pressure of him going home and developing the photos in the darkroom ready to be put in the newspaper a couple of days later (yes we're talking film days).

Obviously the pressure of film is no longer there and I get the feeling that wedding photography is a lot more relaxed now.

If I was to change my mind any advice?

I'm more equipped for landscapes than portraits ie I don't really have any primes for portraits or much in the way of lighting apart from a couple of speedlights. Although I did notice on the last wedding I went to (as a guest) the photographer pretty much used a 24-70 (or 24-105) all day apart from the wide group shots. What's the minimum I could get away with?
Click to expand...
In your dads day he probably shot a few rolls of 12 exposure or a 36 exposure or two. people expect a lot more photos these days.
In your dads day if he messed up only their friends and family knew about, his chance of getting sued was minimal. These days if you mess up the whole of antisocial media will know in 10 minutes and your picture will be in the daily mail with the caption "special day ruined says bride". And you almost certainly will get sued.
Personally I think expectations are much higher now than ever. As for minimum gear, you could probably get away with a 24-70 and a flash (or equivilent on crop) but, and it's a biggie, if theres a problem or poor light you might need something wider and something faster, I'd want something longer too, but you could probably get away without it. Think about back-up too, really a duplicate or overlap of everything.
 
Every wedding photographer in here must hate their job based on their description of a wedding . Anyway go for it , let the couple know your skill level , under promise and over deliver and do your homework . If you love it and do a good job then great ! If you make a balls up then you make us wedding photographers look even better than we are lol .
 
stumac said:
Every wedding photographer in here must hate their job based on their description of a wedding . Anyway go for it , let the couple know your skill level , under promise and over deliver and do your homework . If you love it and do a good job then great ! If you make a balls up then you make us wedding photographers look even better than we are lol .
Click to expand...

I certainly don't, I enjoy doing them very much. In all the years I've been shooting wedding I've only ever had two I didn't feel comfortable at, and that was me not the couples or the weddings I was at, I was just in the wrong place in my head for some reason.
Thats despite having people die at weddings, lots of fights, and even having to "patch up" a bridesmaid after she cut her leg open, and having another catch her hair on fire. Those wedding didn't bother me.
Yes they can be challenging, the light is often bad, vicars can be frankly barking mad, and venues designed to make it nearly impossible to get any pictures, or indeed anywhere dry for the guests to go while they turn the room around if it's raining. But that just makes it more fun.
The point is it's not for the feint hearted and it's not as easy as some would have you think.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I certainly don't, I enjoy doing them very much. In all the years I've been shooting wedding I've only ever had two I didn't feel comfortable at, and that was me not the couples or the weddings I was at, I was just in the wrong place in my head for some reason.
Thats despite having people die at weddings, lots of fights, and even having to "patch up" a bridesmaid after she cut her leg open, and having another catch her hair on fire. Those wedding didn't bother me.
Yes they can be challenging, the light is often bad, vicars can be frankly barking mad, and venues designed to make it nearly impossible to get any pictures, or indeed anywhere dry for the guests to go while they turn the room around if it's raining. But that just makes it more fun.
The point is it's not for the feint hearted and it's not as easy as some would have you think.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and my list of pros is much longer than cons but it's generally only the cons that are shoved down new starts throats . I'm glad I ignored the people putting me off weddings nearly 10 years ago now . I understand that they need to know how challenging weddings can be but they should also know how rewarding they can be and rewarding it is 95% of the time
 
stumac said:
Every wedding photographer in here must hate their job based on their description of a wedding . ...
Click to expand...
None of the wedding photographers that commented suggested anything of the sort.

That’s the problem with forums, for them to be of any use, you have to know how qualified the opinions are ;)

Though I think I put the OP off by telling them that weddings were great fun but only if you like people ;)
 
Phil V said:
None of the wedding photographers that commented suggested anything of the sort.

That’s the problem with forums, for them to be of any use, you have to know how qualified the opinions are ;)

Though I think I put the OP off by telling them that weddings were great fun but only if you like people ;)
Click to expand...
I picked up on that Phil you did say they were fun but out of the 100s of replies to the same threads as this that comment of yours is extremely rare . Just have a look back at them and you will see , wedding photographers say if it's your first wedding don't do it , guests can be a nightmare , no body listens to the photographer , some venues are crap , some vicars are dicks , it rains all the time , you'll hate it , if you do a bad job you'll end up in court etc etc etc . It would be refreshing to see a list of all the good things that make us do what we do and why we should be encouraging new members to join the Industry
 
stumac said:
I picked up on that Phil you did say they were fun but out of the 100s of replies to the same threads as this that comment of yours is extremely rare . Just have a look back at them and you will see , wedding photographers say if it's your first wedding don't do it , guests can be a nightmare , no body listens to the photographer , some venues are crap , some vicars are dicks , it rains all the time , you'll hate it , if you do a bad job you'll end up in court etc etc etc . It would be refreshing to see a list of all the good things that make us do what we do and why we should be encouraging new members to join the Industry
Click to expand...
I know there’s loads of those kinds of answers, but they need to be taken in context, and to know who’s posting.
Weddong threads here are usually a nightmare, but it’s rarely the wedding photographers responsible.
As above there’s loads of people who have never shot one but insist on scaring people off. Then folks that have never shot one who reckon it’s easy, usually a core of actual wedding photographers trying to be honest but say it’s great fun (for the right person) are drowned out by the b******t.

Like I have said regarding other subjects, knowing who it is that’s posting is the key to forums being useful.
 
stumac said:
I picked up on that Phil you did say they were fun but out of the 100s of replies to the same threads as this that comment of yours is extremely rare . Just have a look back at them and you will see , wedding photographers say if it's your first wedding don't do it , guests can be a nightmare , no body listens to the photographer , some venues are crap , some vicars are dicks , it rains all the time , you'll hate it , if you do a bad job you'll end up in court etc etc etc . It would be refreshing to see a list of all the good things that make us do what we do and why we should be encouraging new members to join the Industry
Click to expand...
People need to know it's not always sunshine and laughter, go into any job with your eyes shut and you'll probably end up with a problem sooner or later, better to know what can go wrong.
All the negatives you mention can happen in one wedding, good luck if your expecting rainbows and unicorns. ;)
 
swanseamale47 said:
People need to know it's not always sunshine and laughter, go into any job with your eyes shut and you'll probably end up with a problem sooner or later, better to know what can go wrong.
All the negatives you mention can happen in one wedding, good luck if your expecting rainbows and unicorns. ;)
Click to expand...
I've covered 300 weddings so I know the score . All I'm.saying is no new starts really ever get to hear about the good stuff when they ask questions . Yes certainly let them know all the cons but as I already said a fee pros wouldn't go a miss .
 
I'm loving this thread. Having covered probably 400+ wedding now in the last ten years doing it full time I can honestly say................. It's the BEST job in the world..........and............ the worst job in the world.
Good days are great. The weather is perfect, the couple of gorgeous, they WANT photographs, they've listened to your advise, that little shard of light is in just the right place for the perfect portrait. There are only 6 groups and everyone including the venue is easy going and helpful.
On the other hand, you can be shooting in a less than interesting place, it could be throwing it down, the couple have only booked you because they were told they'd 'better have a photographer' so they hired you but they don't want photographs (it happens). They didn't listen and have a list of 50 'must have' group shots and you've no time to do all this with 150 guests (this is after the pre-wedding meeting where you discussed all this).

You get the good with the bad. The good for me this year has been some stunning venues with great couples to work with. My worst - the 23rd December a few years ago, 250 guests in a church, a vicar who didn't like photographers, 3pm ceremony (so no light), and rain going horizontal and a couple who still expect you to deliver the goods.

If you plan ahead, set expectations accordingly, under promise and over deliver, be TOTALLY honest about your ability, charge in accordance with your ability and have the kit needed to do the job then go for it!

The one thing I never do is rely on wedding party members help round people up. It's quicker and easier to do it myself and can be done quite quickly and easily with a little practice.

The view I have on shooting weddings now, is if something goes wrong and it's not your fault and you can't do anything about it, put it behind you and carry on shooting!
 
MartinH32 said:
You get the good with the bad. The good for me this year has been some stunning venues with great couples to work with. My worst - the 23rd December a few years ago, 250 guests in a church, a vicar who didn't like photographers, 3pm ceremony (so no light), and rain going horizontal and a couple who still expect you to deliver the goods.
Click to expand...

Ha ha... I can beat that - Goth Wedding, 4:00pm 31st October (yes, Halloween), Bride's dress and veil Black, arrived at the Church (yes, I know, it was permitted) in a hearse, principal Guests in Military Field ambulances, rings carried on the back of a dog under the control of their autistic son (actually, a really lovely lad with Rainman functionality who informed me that up, to now, "you've taken 157 pictures"), Best Man (groom's brother) informed Mrs. Chuckles, "Any closer and I'll push that camera down your throat", Wedding cake covered in cobwebs (whole Reception venue decorated to a Halloween theme)..... I could go on!

Not the best wedding shots we've ever produced but I'm so glad we went to the rehearsal! First wedding I've done where I've not had to worry about burnt highlights on a dress :)
 
Last edited:
I hasten to add... we've had some really good ones too. Cracking venues and people.
 
I think many a wedding photographer started out in exactly the same scenario (including me!). I decided to take the plunge, and loved it (and still do!). Many photographers shoot with zooms, some shoot with primes and some mix it up. My kit bag includes:

24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.4
90 f/2.8 Macro (for close-up details)

I used to use the 24-70 for the majority of the day, but now I only use it for family formals and nighttime / flash work. I let my second use it and the other zoom, too.
Mostly I shoot everything from prep - speeches with primes, switching over to the 24-70 after dark with flash.

I enjoy the pace and stress of a wedding. I'm also quite "people-y", so enjoy the human element of a wedding, too. But I do know some people that hate them and wouldn't ever want to put themselves in that kind situation. I suppose your enjoyment of the experience all depends on the kind of person you are, but you never know until you try!
 
While the pressure of film is no longer an issue, it brings other problems.
In film days it was common to shoot 2 rolls of 36 exposure film or a few rolls of 120/220 (12 or 24 exp) now people expect 500/1000+ plus pics.
Thats a lot more shooting time (and editing).
The other factor is people these days are much more aware of quality and quick to sue. Back in film days no matter how bad the album (and I've seen some amazingly bad ones) the idea of suing the photographer was almost unheard of. Now get one pic wrong and they're on facebook saying their big day was ruined by Fred Blogs photographer 123 sad street and their lawyer has a letter in the post before you can say knife..... possibly before they've even seen the pics if they think they can make a few quid. ;)
 
I'm glad I am no longer doing wedding photographs - to answer Phil's question I don't like people and it's always easy to hide behind a camera...

I did my stint in the the dying days of film - usually go through a few rolls of 120 and a roll or two of 35mm - and was highly dependant on the lab (Peak Imaging who never failed me), and I relied on reprints for profits. Already then you could envision people being able to scan and copy images without having to order extra copies. A bit of a handicap I had was that 645 and 35 mm have different aspect ratios which was a bugger if you wanted prints of a specific size..

As others have said people are more clued up now in terms of what they expect, and will more readily express disappointment. Last wedding I attended was a whole 10 years ago (as a guest but Mission control was asked to photograph) and I could see that a photographer would have to compete with several smartphones so a lot of the photographs are immediately copied, thus robbing the photographer of reprint orders...

On the whole I think photographing a wedding is easier now, but being able to generate a good earning from them is more difficult. Social media and sharing has certainly made things much more difficult.
 
I love everything about the day, it just gets a little tedious when editing though I still enjoy it (just not as entertaining as the day itself).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top