is Wedding Photography necessary ?

When we got married, we didn't have an official photographer but we did have several guests who brought thgeir digital cameras and snapped away. One of them (Dad) used to be a pro tographer (not weddings) and had a DSLR (D50) and the others had P&Ses. When we got back here, I commandeered the cards and nicked all their pics. Weeded out the carp ones and printed the rest off at 6x4 for a little flip album to show interested parties. Did A4 prints of the best and have a couple framed (we got a couple of nice frames as wedding gifts). Total cost to us (inks and paper) was about £20 or so and we have just as many memories of the day as we would have done had we spend £x,000 on a photographer. In fact, our total spend on the whole day (registry office, meal, dress + suit) was less than a cousin spent having the bridesmaids' shoes dyed to match the limo...

OK, we had been together for over 20 years before we married, so have plenty of memories of our time together anyway but it does seem rather excessive to spend £x,000 on a book of photos that statistically may well end up as waste paper after a few years anyway.
 
More to the point is there any need for the whole church wedding when the participants are not even remotely religious?

Daresay they will look at the photo album more often than they will ever set foot in a church again.

Hypocrisy all round including the church who do it for the money
 
Last edited:
Whats the point of spending money on anything if that is the case. Why spend £100's (even £1000's) on a TV which will need to get reaplced at some point. Not everyone has got friends of family who are into photography (my mate thinks his 12mp Sony Satio phone will take better picture than most DLSR as it has more MP!), so for some people spending the money to get decent pictures and memories is well worth it.

This is going to be a subject which is always going to split people, but I for one don't want to take the risk of ending up with a pile of rubbish pictures from friends p&s cameras. I only plan to get married once so we might aswell make the most of having something we can look at, even if it is only once a year.
 
Break it down into value for monet (or even moneY!) terms. How long do you spend watching the haunted fishtank? Say an hour and a half per day - round that up to 500 hours per year. Let's say a reasonable TV costs £500 (convenient, eh?!) so in one year, the TV costs £1 per hour of viewing. Do the same sort of maths for a car, house, bed, shoes. Now look at a wedding album and do the same - or a nice print on the wall. OK, a print on the wall will be seen every day but how often does it get really looked at?
 
Last edited:
Because crap gets filtered out by the sweary filter.
 
Or gets stamped on (wash your shoes, gents [and lady]!) by the mods, sometimes.
 
Nod said:
Break it down into value for monet (or even moneY!) terms. How long do you spend watching the haunted fishtank? Say an hour and a half per day - round that up to 500 hours per year. Let's say a reasonable TV costs £500 (convenient, eh?!) so in one year, the TV costs £1 per hour of viewing. Do the same sort of maths for a car, house, bed, shoes. Now look at a wedding album and do the same - or a nice print on the wall. OK, a print on the wall will be seen every day but how often does it get really looked at?
Click to expand...

but that only works if you treat your whole wedding as a commodity - you could easliy make them same arguement for the dress, the suits or anything else from the day.

It only works if you view the day as a purely financial transaction, sure for some there is limited value in the photography (or another part of the day) but for some it means the world
 
Nod & Tijuana

I see & made me laugh.
 
I'm getting married next month and I made sure we had a good photographer on board, he'll get better images than the guests because he's a professional and it's his task for the day - guests are there to share the day, have a nice time and get drunk.

I will notice and appreciate the difference that a pro has made, both now and every time I look at the album, it's a special day and we want a special album of it.

As for whether it's necessary, probably not, but then marriage isn't necessary either so it's more a case of do people want wedding photography and the answer to that is a resounding yes.
 
Nod said:
Break it down into value for monet (or even moneY!) terms. How long do you spend watching the haunted fishtank? Say an hour and a half per day - round that up to 500 hours per year. Let's say a reasonable TV costs £500 (convenient, eh?!) so in one year, the TV costs £1 per hour of viewing. Do the same sort of maths for a car, house, bed, shoes. Now look at a wedding album and do the same - or a nice print on the wall. OK, a print on the wall will be seen every day but how often does it get really looked at?
Click to expand...

I don't think we will agree on this, I'm quite happy (as are 1000's of people) to spend money on something which is going to mean something to me. Just in the same way I didn't mind spending £1000 on a TV or £**k on a car. What would you have done if ALL the photos that your friends/family took weren't worth the time to print?
I'm sure if I had a friend who was will to take the photographs of my wedding I would turn them down. Not only is it a hell of alot of pressure on a friend, it can also ruin the day for them. Hence the reason many people bring in an outsider who is good at their job and won't be annoyed if you ask them to stop enjoying themselves to take more pictures.

If you are happy to do it, then do it, if not.. don't.
 
Last edited:
I would have been extremely surprised if 7 digital cameras and 2 film had all developed terminal faults at the same time on the same day and if none of the guests had managed to get a decent pic.

As Madhouse pointed out, marriage itself isn't necessary (although it's worth it just to screw the taxman since there's no IHT between spouses) so wedding photographs are even less so.

By all means, if you have £x,000 to spend on just the photography, do it but for us (and many others), there are far better (and more fun) ways to spend the money!
 
Nod said:
I

By all means, if you have £x,000 to spend on just the photography, do it but for us (and many others), there are far better (and more fun) ways to spend the money!
Click to expand...


for you - people differ and tastes differ, what you might regard as 'better' and more fun, they might think of as a complete waste :)
 
Definitely think it's important in the grand scheme of things and it's a real investment. Trouble can arise if there isn't a connection between your style and vision and their expectations and their own tastes.

I think it's a great record of a very important day. If done correctly it can really keep the day alive for decades. And often times it's the most lasting memories in a persons lifetime. Sometimes though people just don't appreciate it. I try to weed out those kind of clients though :)
 
The worst two wedding shoots I have seen, and I have taken and seen hundreds...
Was my own wedding, Taken by the most respected Photographer in the Ashford area in 1960.
He used 5x4 film and managed to get every shot slightly out of focus. also tree branches coming out of heads was the norm rather than the exception.
The next was my daughters wedding ... again the best photographer in the area (excluding myself) every shot of my son in law has his eyes half shut ( he was using a Bronica which was famous for having a mirror/shutter lag equal to an average blink)
They had a difficult job selecting sufficient shots for the album, for either this or poor composition and timing.

Fortunately I had a rolleiflex and flash with me and took a few shots which now take pride of place in her album, and on her wall.

Spending top money guarantees very little at all.
 
You OP doesn't mention mention money at all though? You don't always have to spend alot of money to good things in life. The guy who we are in discussion with at the moment isn't 'expensive' compared to other wedding togs, but we've seen his work (lots of it) and are happy to hand the duty onto him.
As I've said before,not everyone is lucky enough to know people in the business or have friends/family who are keen on taking pictures. I'm seeing my wedding day as something for myself, my wife to be and all our friends and family to enjoy and by hiring someone in to do the photos it takes the stress of them. Just in the same way I wouldn't expect my DJ/lighting friend to spend his night at my wedding behind the decks, or my brother who is a chef to cook the meal.
 
this thread has help me .. i have been roped (my 1st one) into doing a wedding reading all the comments has help

i am doing it for free , but asked for them to make a donation to a chraity.

the one about trees out of heads was one thing i had not thought about (composition)

Thanks All Steve
 
I absolutely agree with you Terry. Its one thing to get some decent photographs as a memory of the day; its quite another to treat the day as a surrogate photo shoot of the Hello-OK kind.

Spending that kind of money on wedding photographs is completely pointless to me - I will never do it. I will rather spend it on something that I will need to set up the home; or put the cash away for a rainy day.
 
Last edited:
I think that the answers so far have indicated that there is considerable diviersity of thought.

Many wedings have become little more than a series of "photo opportunities" with the Photographer the master of ceremonies.... I have been in that position many times my self and it is indeed profitable.

However I think peoples perception about "their day" is polarising, with the "Facebook attitude" perhaps starting to win out.

This will be Good for the Photographic profession if they learn how to capatilise from it.

Perhaps offering and more importantly, hosting, well dsigned web pages that guests can down load to.

The oportunity of an annual hosting fee comes to mind, as well as on line printing services.

Of course some people will be able to set this up them selves... you can't win them all.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Last weekend's wedding was all over Facebook before I even got up on the Sunday. But the bride still stopped shopping and went home to see them as soon as she heard the "pro" pictures were online. http://peoplebyryan.com/weddings/victoria-and-ashley-wedding-at-westenhanger-castle
Click to expand...

Those photos are amazing - definately the kind of thing that you would never ever get from friends standing round with their compacts, and IMO a very important reason for getting a wedding photographer.

I think that one of the main problems with relying on friends&family's snaps is the lack of composition. When you get a pro they will organise you and frame the shots well. My wedding pics of my wife&I with our extended familes etc are something which we will never get in any other situation (even family parties etc) and that's something that I really appreciate about them.

If you are properly organised and prepare which photos you want, and their compositions, in advance then maybe friends could do it, but I think relying on the normal blurred facebook-esque snaps would be a dissapointment when you're showing it to your grandchildren many years later! I also think that classicly composed and well taken wedding photos will stand the test of time and not look as dated (photo style wise, not hair style!) when looking back in future years.

People are just being scared off hiring a pro by the very large cost and no guarantee that the pics will be good as anybody can set themselves up as a 'pro wedding photographer' in the yellow pages.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Although I once derived a very nice living from Wedding Photography, I am coming to the conclusion that the whole wedding shoot performance is unnecessary.

There are two clues to this... Apart from a framed shot of the Bride and groom how many other shots do you see in peoples homes.

Ask any couple two or three years down the line, as to how often they look at their wedding album, and in most cases you will be met with a blank stare.

I would rather see the return of the early victorian way, of having a studio (or Location) shoot with the Bride and Groom and then a family shoot including the first borne some time later.

As for the other shots that might be taken on the day. Those provided by Guests are more than sufficient and are usually more personal.

Perhaps the provision of a personal webpage where guests and others could download their efforts would, in todays "facebook" age be more appropriate.

I of course do not expect wedding photographers to agree. :bonk:
Click to expand...

We don't shoot weddings just for those getting married, or those that are guests.

We shoot them for those aren't there, or for those yet to come.
 
anniephoto said:
Well I would if the father-in-law hadn't spilt red wine down it on the day :LOL: ... mind you nothing a bit of clever pp couldn't fix ;) I wish I had a photographer but I would never get it done retrospectively... it wouldn't be the same!
Click to expand...


Trash the dress shoot! You're part way there!! :LOL:
 
Been married 25 years and yes the only shot on permanent view is me and SWMBO,however every so often we look through the album and memories of the day come flooding back,its also good to have shots of loved ones who are no longer with us.I wish we had digital in those days so we would have hundreds of happy shots to look at rather than the 50 or so that we got then
 
Radiohead said:
We don't shoot weddings just for those getting married, or those that are guests.

We shoot them for those aren't there, or for those yet to come.
Click to expand...


I have never been comissiond to take wedding photographs by people who were not there or by those yet to come...(y)

I have always shot for the Bride and Groom as the primary customer, even though some one else may have paid the cash in the end.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I have never been comissiond to take wedding photographs by people who were not there or by those yet to come...(y)

I have always shot for the Bride and Groom as the primary customer, even though some one else may have paid the cash in the end.
Click to expand...

You missed my point fairly spectacularly there, whether intentionally or not.

You think that events as important in peoples' lives as a wedding are photographed purely for the people there? That's a staggeringly narrow-minded view of any documentary photography.

Separate the payment from the event.
 
also consider the fact that this has sentimental and ancestral value. imagine kids, grandkids or great grandkids finding an old relatives wedding album that would be amazing to look through.

the couple dont have to look at it but its nice to know that its there as a rememberance.
 
Radiohead said:
You missed my point fairly spectacularly there, whether intentionally or not.

You think that events as important in peoples' lives as a wedding are photographed purely for the people there? That's a staggeringly narrow-minded view of any documentary photography.

Separate the payment from the event.
Click to expand...

I would agree family photographs are very interesting and become more so as time moves on.

However Professional shots rarely fit in to that profile. The ones that are most personal, and interesting, as against professional quality, are the snaps taken by other family members of real events.

Over ninety percent of any wedding shots are posed setups. That even applies to the great flying bride shot, shown earlier in the thread.
although this is a great shot, it is neither real nor personal.

This really goes to the heart of my op. Most wedding photographers shoot the results of their own direction and arrangements and well rehearsed stage management, not the event and happenings themselves.

In fact most of the "Photo Opportunities" would not even happen if it were not for the photographer.

Most of the shots taken at a wedding are not aimed at any one or anything in particular. They are taken as part of a planned sales opportunity. Any one thinking differently is not taking their business seriously. Posterity rarely comes into it.

Very few of our photographs survive us or our final house clearance. It would be nice to think otherwise, but it would be wishful thinking.
 
Take a look at my site. Less than 5% of what you see is posed. The rest is very real. Go on, take a look and tell me it's posed and staged.

In essence what you've just written is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.
 
I got married May 2009, I am still paying for the wedding/honeymoon, it was around £20k in total, £3k of which was photography and another £1k on the video. Despite the huge cost it's what the other half wanted so she had it. I'd rather regret spending too much than look back and think "we should of done XXX". It only happens once!

Video has been used numerous times, we have one pro wedding canvas on the wall and several from friends and from my camera. Album, other than the initial browse by people hasn't been out.

But, the wedding is still fresh and I am sure, in 10+ years the photos of the day will mean a lot more.
 
Last edited:
Harvey_nikon said:
I got married May 2009, I am still paying for the wedding/honeymoon, it was around £20k in total, £3k of which was photography and another £1k on the video. Despite the huge cost it's what the other half wanted so she had it. I'd rather regret spending too much than look back and think "we should of done XXX". It only happens once!

Video has been used numerous times, we have one pro wedding canvas on the wall and several from friends and from my camera. Album, other than the initial browse by people hasn't been out.

But, the wedding is still fresh and I am sure, in 10+ years the photos of the day will mean a lot more.
Click to expand...

Probably didn't have my album out in the first 12 months because the memories are stll dresh 20 years from now I guarantee they will be dog eared
 
Radiohead said:
Take a look at my site. Less than 5% of what you see is posed. The rest is very real. Go on, take a look and tell me it's posed and staged.

In essence what you've just written is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.
Click to expand...
Guy I love your wedding portfolio...if you ever want a free 2nd shooter who would love to learn a few tricks of you (albeit I'm a Canon user!) I'd love to see how you get such a full and varied set from your weddings without all the "posing"...I'm in Hampshire!
 
Radiohead said:
Take a look at my site. Less than 5% of what you see is posed. The rest is very real. Go on, take a look and tell me it's posed and staged.

In essence what you've just written is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.
Click to expand...

You certainly have a nice free style, with little posing.
Perhaps a little more, at times, would tidy things up.

I prefer what you do, to most that I see. but you are far from the norm even today.

You have quite a wide repertoire of things you look for.
 
anniephoto said:
Guy I love your wedding portfolio...if you ever want a free 2nd shooter who would love to learn a few tricks of you (albeit I'm a Canon user!) I'd love to see how you get such a full and varied set from your weddings without all the "posing"...I'm in Hampshire!
Click to expand...

Thanks Annie - I'll bear you in mind (y)

Terrywoodenpic said:
You certainly have a nice free style, with little posing.
Click to expand...

There is NO posing. Even with portraits I don't guide, I wait, interact and get the moment.

Terrywoodenpic said:
Perhaps a little more, at times, would tidy things up.
Click to expand...

Your opinion of course.

Terrywoodenpic said:
I prefer what you do, to most that I see. but you are far from the norm even today.

You have quite a wide repertoire of things you look for.
Click to expand...

Not really, there are loads of us doing this. You're just not looking at the right photography.
 
wedding togging may not be a desperate need, but i hope it keeps going.
my mrs makes a living out of it.
people do spend hideous amounts of money on getting married, some spend very little on it.
but what is left a few years down the line when you get nostalgic?
only the photographs.

weve done everything from four people at a register office and twenty prints , to 300 people and an album the size of a TV.
each to their own.

our wedding tog was a friend of my dads.reception in the inlaws front room. night do in a room over the local pub.

one of last years clients spent £30k on their wedding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top