is Wedding Photography necessary ?

[inaneredstripe]

incidentaly, i have kept my parents wedding album, even thought they are sadly no longer with us.

 

[Circles]

Well I doubt if this is going to go down well but I have done many weddings but I have now stopped doing them. I don't think people should pay anyone for their wedding photos anymore. Everyone who had a camera for Christmas last year is now a wedding photographer. They'll go out for nothing shoot 2 or 3 thousand images knowing that at least 2 or 3 % will be ok. They need absolutely no knowledge of photography, or of being able to control their subjects. They do the very trendy reportage you see....modern innit... not like the boring old stuff.And then any photographers that were good at their job have had their income seriously diluted by this new lot.

So the essential truth is that the photographers that the bride and groom are paying for these days, are not going to get any better pictures than if you gave a compact to the flower girl and ask her to take pictures.
The, on the fly, candids are a numbers game we all know that.

If you want decent reportage then there is a lot of engineering going into producing those shots which actually take longer than doing the traditional poses. But because the local fly boys don't recognise the work that has gone into it they think they can do the same. And probably out of the thousands of pictures they have taken that one or two percent are usable and could be loosely termed as good. It's an accident as to which ones are though.
Whereas, a good wedding photographer can guarantee a much higher percentage that will be.

I wouldn't pay for a so called wedding photographer these days and I advise any brides that come to me of that now, should they ask, "Do you do cheap reportage mister?"
The only photographers that I will recommend locally are my main studio competitor, as he has excellent wedding credentials and one other chap that I know who has an equal talent at wedding photography.
I like the idea that OP had of doing the one portrait to put on the wall and leave it at that, where they can call into the studio and have a couple of portraits done. Unfortunately these days most wedding day portraits include the 3 kids as well.

 

[Radiohead]

Well I doubt if this is going to go down well but I have done many weddings but I have now stopped doing them. I don't think people should pay anyone for their wedding photos anymore. Everyone who had a camera for Christmas last year is now a wedding photographer. They'll go out for nothing shoot 2 or 3 thousand images knowing that at least 2 or 3 % will be ok. They need absolutely no knowledge of photography, or of being able to control their subjects.

Riiiight.

They do the very trendy reportage you see....modern innit... not like the boring old stuff.And then any photographers that were good at their job have had their income seriously diluted by this new lot.

Or those that still are are doing just fine. They didn't move with the market.

So the essential truth is that the photographers that the bride and groom are paying for these days, are not going to get any better pictures than if you gave a compact to the flower girl and ask her to take pictures.

Really?

If you want decent reportage then there is a lot of engineering going into producing those shots which actually take longer than doing the traditional poses. But because the local fly boys don't recognise the work that has gone into it they think they can do the same. And probably out of the thousands of pictures they have taken that one or two percent are usable and could be loosely termed as good. It's an accident as to which ones are though.

Engineering? If it's engineered it ain't reportage/PJ/documentary.

Whereas, a good wedding photographer can guarantee a much higher percentage that will be.

Yes, we do.

I wouldn't pay for a so called wedding photographer these days and I advise any brides that come to me of that now, should they ask, "Do you do cheap reportage mister?"

Why are you equating cheap with documentary? It's not borne out by fact.

Overall, an immensely puzzling post there. And a very confused one.

 

[photostar_1]

My wedding photographer (back in the days when Adam was a lad), managed to "loose" my film, so we never had any traditionally posed photos. My friends rallied round and sent me copies of their snaps, but although I was disappointed at the time, it doesn't bother me (or him indoors) now.

The OP is right....after the first few months, the album has never seen the light of day!

 

[Circles]

Why are you equating cheap with documentary? It's not borne out by fact.

Overall, an immensely puzzling post there. And a very confused one.

I haven't at all. What I am pointing out is that there are a lot of new photographers in the wedding market that have latched onto the reportage scene who aren't good photographers.
You may be a good photographer, and you may pride yourself on your work and you get a decent fee for it, and I say then that's good. I did the same myself, but I've got a slipped disc now so I have left weddings alone for the past year or so. However, just because you may be good and able to pull out a decent set of reportage images, it doesn't mean the multitude of others all purporting to be able to do the same, actually can.
That was the main point of my post
I am not, nor would I try to ridicule you in any way, so I don't appreciate it from you.

 

[Radiohead]

I'm not ridiculing you. I make NO claims of greatness for myself. Far, far from it.

Your post made no allowance for good documentary wedding photography. It just attacked it. The theme here with you and the OP is that you've had a go and made some money, but now it's no longer needed.

That seems plain odd to me at best.

IMO the wedding photography we're seeing now, and in the last 5 years or so, is the best it's ever been. It's a million miles away from the staid, posed, lacking-any-emotion stuff that was the norm for decades. Is there rubbish? Of course. 'Twas ever thus. But there's some absolutely incredible wedding photography out there.

 

[Adam_K]

IMO the wedding photography we're seeing now, and in the last 5 years or so, is the best it's ever been. It's a million miles away from the staid, posed, lacking-any-emotion stuff that was the norm for decades. Is there rubbish? Of course. 'Twas ever thus. But there's some absolutely incredible wedding photography out there.

Well said that man.
I agree that with this digital age it allows us to be even more creative. I try to capture the atmosphere of the day.

You can look around at certain so called wedding togs portfolios and cringe at the staging, along with the so called b&w conversions that are flat. I wonder why would people accept it, I wouldn't. It is easy to tar all wedding photographers with the same brush.

I got married 6 years ago and rarely look at the album, does that make it a bad choice on our part No. It is all about memories and happy ones at that.

 

[a1ex2001]

Once again you could extrapolate this thread to cover the entire wedding industry, the whole thing is getting out of hand and is seemingly endlessly fuelled by a succession of one up man ship. I hope one day people rediscover that the true meaning of marrige cannot be purchased, photographed, eaten or drunk.

 

[Circles]

.

 

[Circles]

I'm not ridiculing you. I make NO claims of greatness for myself. Far, far from it.

Your post made no allowance for good documentary wedding photography. It just attacked it. The theme here with you and the OP is that you've had a go and made some money, but now it's no longer needed.

That seems plain odd to me at best.

No I don't think I have made my self very clear, I think there are many brilliant reportage wedding photographers out there, although you and I differ on what we mean by reportage. To me, reportage would be some candids but my main shots would definitely be managed to look like they may have been taken candidly, but they wouldn't have been. To give you an idea, I suppose something like this image for instance, although it isn't a good example of what I mean because I haven't got instant web access to much in the way of my old wedding photographs at the moment.

I've looked at your web site because I needed to understand what level you were at and it is high. Very nicely taken images in your reportage style.
I'm certainly not knocking you and I think you deserve what ever fee you can demand. But I still think I deserve whatever fee I can too, but what I suppose gets to me, is that there are people who have jumped on to your bandwagon with absolutely no photographic knowledge and are devaluing the wedding photographer so that we now have wedding clients that expect 2000 images on a disc for £200. That is why I say to couples you may as well get your flower girl to do them for you unless you are prepared to pay a decent fee for a decent photographer.
I don't think we are on different sides here actually....I think it's just a misunderstanding, I'll concede, probably caused by me, but if you read my original post again you may see we aren't that far apart.

 

[Radiohead]

No I don't think I have made my self very clear, I think there are many brilliant reportage wedding photographers out there, although you and I differ on what we mean by reportage. To me, reportage would be some candids but my main shots would definitely be managed to look like they may have been taken candidly, but they wouldn't have been. To give you an idea, I suppose something like this image for instance, although it isn't a good example of what I mean because I haven't got instant web access to much in the way of my old wedding photographs at the moment.
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3397/81920077382686301bdy6.jpg[/QUOTE]

Thanks for clarifying.

I think we agree in terms of reportage being candid. Where we differ is that aside from the very few groups shots that I take, nothing else is managed or directed.

[quote="Circles, post: 3059329"]
I've looked at your web site because I needed to understand what level you were at and it is high. Very nicely taken images in your reportage style.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

[quote="Circles, post: 3059329"]I'm certainly not knocking you and I think you deserve what ever fee you can demand. But I still think I deserve whatever fee I can too, but what I suppose gets to me, is that there are people who have jumped on to your bandwagon with absolutely no photographic knowledge and are devaluing the wedding photographer so that we now have wedding clients that expect 2000 images on a disc for £200. That is why I say to couples you may as well get your flower girl to do them for you unless you are prepared to pay a decent fee for a decent photographer.
I don't think we are on different sides here actually....I think it's just a misunderstanding, I'll concede, probably caused by me, but if you read my original post again you may see we aren't that far apart.[/QUOTE]

Now there we do agree, and it certainly seems to be digital that has opened the floodgates. That said, there are still a lot of people who know and value good photography and they're happy to pay to get it.

I think we do agree that you generally get what you pay for. There are a lot of chancers out there, some of them charging mad money and others asking almost nothing.