micromontenegro
Well-known
I have had three weddings (two of them with the same gal) with hired pro photogs. I can honestly say that the only remarkable image was taken by the bride's best friend with a PS. Less then zero technically, t really captured a mood of happiness and intimacy that all the rest lacked.
There will be no pro at my fourth wedding.
There will be no pro at my fourth wedding.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Dear Roger,
As they say in the islands, "True dat"
My parents, for example, never lived together before getting married - fancy that.. they were together for 42 years until my mother died in 2006. That's just one example. There are, I'm sure, plenty of others
That said, going back to the OP's query and the debate over whether $2,000 is a lot of money for wedding photography. Ya know, there are a whole whack of people out there *points to beyond the RangeFinder Forum* that think paying $7,000 USD for a full frame digital camera body is ridiculous when you can get a perfectly fine full frame digital camera body for $2,700 USD or even cheaper if you don't want "full frame" (which a lot of people not in the know would say "what's 'full frame'???").
So, similarly, there are people that will say that $2,000 truly is a lot of money (either because money is tight for them or they're frugal or they just don't know any better or they do know better and they don't feel anyone/thing is worth that $2,000) and conversely there are those that would drop $10,000 for a wedding photographer because of the exact same reasons.
Either way you slice it, the end result is, the bride and the groom MUST BE HAPPY with the choices they make. Whether it's to spend $2,000 or more or to just get someone to shoot it "por nada". In the end it is only the married couple that matters and as long as they're satisfied with their images, then everything else; price, type of camera, name of the photographer, etc. etc. etc. is moot
Cheers,
Dave
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Roger,
As they say in the islands, "True dat"
My parents, for example, never lived together before getting married - fancy that.. they were together for 42 years until my mother died in 2006. That's just one example. There are, I'm sure, plenty of others
That said, going back to the OP's query and the debate over whether $2,000 is a lot of money for wedding photography. Ya know, there are a whole whack of people out there *points to beyond the RangeFinder Forum* that think paying $7,000 USD for a full frame digital camera body is ridiculous when you can get a perfectly fine full frame digital camera body for $2,700 USD or even cheaper if you don't want "full frame" (which a lot of people not in the know would say "what's 'full frame'???").
So, similarly, there are people that will say that $2,000 truly is a lot of money (either because money is tight for them or they're frugal or they just don't know any better or they do know better and they don't feel anyone/thing is worth that $2,000) and conversely there are those that would drop $10,000 for a wedding photographer because of the exact same reasons.
Either way you slice it, the end result is, the bride and the groom MUST BE HAPPY with the choices they make. Whether it's to spend $2,000 or more or to just get someone to shoot it "por nada". In the end it is only the married couple that matters and as long as they're satisfied with their images, then everything else; price, type of camera, name of the photographer, etc. etc. etc. is moot
Cheers,
Dave
Dear Dave,
Do the maths. You're 44. Your parents were married before that. This is not the last 30-40 years! (I chose the numbers carefully). Same for my parents too: married in December '48, and I was born in June '50.
Sorry to hear about your mother, though: she was not old. Mine died just after her silver wedding anniversary, and she was married a few weeks after her 21st birthday (November 21st -- tomorrow).
For the second highlighted quote: absolutely. None of us can make the choice for them, or say what the pics are worth to them.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Daneinbalto
Established
Whatever you do, make sure you can disengage yourself mentally from the picture-taking process during the festivities. Nothing to ruin your (and the bride's!) wedding as much as you worrying about whether the photog is doing it right. Even if you don't like a particular pro's style, at least they know a bit more than Uncle Marty, and presumably are not distracted or drunk.
It is not nice to burden any guest with being the photographer, even if (s)he is a member of the local camera club.
Putting a disposable camera on each table can be fun, though, as it doesn't signal high expectations.
It is not nice to burden any guest with being the photographer, even if (s)he is a member of the local camera club.
Putting a disposable camera on each table can be fun, though, as it doesn't signal high expectations.
pesphoto
Veteran
save ur money and put it into a house or something more useful...sorry
climbing_vine
Well-known
My wife and I had a very small wedding, 20 immediate family and closest friends. Officiated in a park by one of my wife's deceased mother's confidants. We didn't want the usual cheesy photos, just a few intimate shots of the ceremony. A friend who is a photographer armed himself with an Oly XA and took a few. Our strict instructions to just make it snapshots (nothing posed, and no special access to hover around us or anything) resulted in exactly that--snapshots. Sometimes my wife wishes we had one "nice" picture, but generally we've been happy with the small momentos that we ended up with. Particularly since saving in those areas meant that we honeymooned in Crete without going into debt. But if that one (or more) "nice" shot is important to you, consider it carefully.
photogdave
Shops local
Just because someone is a full time wedding photographer it doesn't necessarily follow that their work is going to be cliche. Many full time wedding shooters USED to be photojournalists who found themselves out of work or otherwise moved on. They can document the day as well as any news photog currently employed in the business.
Maybe I'm defending wedding photographers a little aggressively here but some of my best friends do this for a living and it's very hard work. They have invested a lot of effort into developing a unique style, and even though they are not "photojournalists" they document the special day in a very natural style that is anything but cliche.
Last edited:
Fez Parker
Member
Look at the WPJA website, I have no doubt that you will find a photographer who's work you will appreciate, and then do a local (internet) search for the "Camera Kit Owner" who claim to be wedding photographers.
Ask yourself, if you would trust a "Tool Kit owner" to fix the brakes on your car. You only get Married once and to quote HCB, - "Photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing and when they have vanished there is no contrivance on earth which can make them come back again."
Ask yourself, if you would trust a "Tool Kit owner" to fix the brakes on your car. You only get Married once and to quote HCB, - "Photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing and when they have vanished there is no contrivance on earth which can make them come back again."
Thardy
Veteran
Dear Roger,...
...In the end it is only the married couple that matters and as long as they're satisfied with their images, then everything else; price, type of camera, name of the photographer, etc. etc. etc. is moot
Cheers,
Dave
True dat...
I would add that being satisfied with each other is pretty important too!
In 25 years my wife and I have been through many more important crisis than wedding photos.
Andrew Howes
Established
I still take issue with that. For one thing "wedding photographer"can mean so many different things. Yeah there are some who do boring stuff, many that are clueless either way but the higher end and many mid range of wedding photographer do anything other than cliched work. Unless you think a set of flattering portraits, nicely captured candids and illustartive work that tells their story in a beautiful way is cliched. I guess we could say the same about photojournalists, there are the legends who live the work and have paid the price in thier own life, and a whole range which make up the rest, right down to the lummox who somehow scored an intern job at smallvill local rag. (Most newspaper togs I have met totally cringe at the thought of doing weddings.) I am not saying a good photojournalist would not do a good job, I think one with true empathy with his story would make a very good wedding tog, withone important point to consider: The client is the subject of the story, and the beauty, romance, fantasy and flattery is far more important than the TRUTH. (for 99.9% of them)
The other thing is managing a wedding IS an important part of it, as much as we want to not be a part of the story, a wedding photographer is often relied upon to help keep things going along according to the clients wishes. This is where a lot of wedding experience is very useful. On top of that, even those who claim to have a totally hands off approach, who of their clients would be offended at taking a few minutes out to get a nice flattering portrait? That $4000 dress is a much a part of the story as dad having a laugh or cry. (more actually, truth be told)
All that said, I am all for an alternative approach, infact I wont even take on a wedding anymore unless that is what is required.
FrankS
Registered User
darkhorse, i have the solution to your problem. it is dead simple and i can't believe it hasn't been suggested yet by all the married guys here. all you have to do is say, what would you like to do, dear? keep this in mind and it will keep you in good stead for the rest of your married years. happy wife, happy life. simple, eh?
nikku
Well-known
A-freakin'-men! A friend who is also a very good wedding photographer here in Houston shot our wedding at a discount (something around $4k). It was my wife's call, not mine. And I was totally okay with it, and happy with all the photos.
Then just last month I went to a friend's wedding in San Francisco. They hired a pro photog, but he was not nearly at the level of our photog. They also had at least a dozen people (including myself) taking pictures of their own accord, and had another friend do some candid portraits with an old Polaroid camera and some expired Polaroid film. Not to mention a "photo booth" set up at the reception (digital SLR on tripod w/ instructions on how to use the self timer). Great photos resulted, and it was by no means an "amateur shootout". My favorite photos of the event were the Polaroids, by the way.
The point is, there are a lot of different ways to do it, but none of them is the "right" way. So just do what your fiancee' wants!
pggunn
gregor
Exactly! Very well put.
pakeha
Well-known
Whaaat? who`s in charge of software round here? some guy from Kiev factory huh
Daneinbalto
Established
Sorry if anyone has mentioned it and I have missed it - the thread is getting longish - but did you consider other people who would like to have a nice wedding picture of you and your bride? Her family or yours may like to have a "nice" picture to display. Without engaging someone to take a-picture-a-minute from the ceremony and the party, you could hire someone just to take pictures of you and the bride.
I don't know how common it is in the US, but some friends overseas took out the day before their wedding to go to a beautiful park just for photographs of the two of them. They were wearing their wedding outfits and she brought a bouquet (which makes me think that maybe it was on the morning of the wedding, not the day before, or maybe between the ceremony and the party). Although you probably have many pictures of you and your fiancee individually, it may be nice to have pictures of the two of you together, taken just before or on the big day with the hope of capturing your anticipation. You will have a picture to give to your in-laws, parents, and pass on to your grandchildren.
I don't know how common it is in the US, but some friends overseas took out the day before their wedding to go to a beautiful park just for photographs of the two of them. They were wearing their wedding outfits and she brought a bouquet (which makes me think that maybe it was on the morning of the wedding, not the day before, or maybe between the ceremony and the party). Although you probably have many pictures of you and your fiancee individually, it may be nice to have pictures of the two of you together, taken just before or on the big day with the hope of capturing your anticipation. You will have a picture to give to your in-laws, parents, and pass on to your grandchildren.
Last edited:
Frank Petronio
Well-known
For my last wedding (!) we had a $2000 photographer shoot a few PJ style shots of the ceremony at our house but the real photography was when people exited the ceremony for the outdoor reception -- they had to pass through our cleaned out garage which had been transformed into a classic Irving Penn style canvas backdrop photo studio. In one swoop we got excellent portraits of all our friends and family, including all the 80-90 year olds who are always reluctant to be in photos. And of course we were in a lot of the photos with various people and just ourselves. The photographer allowed me to scan the film and print at will, so everyone got photos. It really worked out well.
Think about what you need... if we were a big Irish drunken family I'd want a PJ-style shooter to capture all the sheenanigans. But we're quiet, so getting two dozen formal portraits of small family groups was the most important thing for us.
Think about what you need... if we were a big Irish drunken family I'd want a PJ-style shooter to capture all the sheenanigans. But we're quiet, so getting two dozen formal portraits of small family groups was the most important thing for us.
Darkhorse
pointed and shot
Hi, everyone.
I just wanted to follow up on this thread. I eventually found a photographer! Two, in fact!
What happened was is that I found a sort of colleague (also a numismatic photographer) who I knew in Portland. She sent me a message saying she would shoot the wedding to build up her wedding portfolio, along with her younger friend who's also building up her portfolio at cost. So all I had to do was to pay for the flights and hotel, along with a rental car. They'd get a free trip to California for the Memorial Day weekend, and I get 2 photographers for the wedding.
The bride to be was happy with this arrangement.
I just wanted to follow up on this thread. I eventually found a photographer! Two, in fact!
What happened was is that I found a sort of colleague (also a numismatic photographer) who I knew in Portland. She sent me a message saying she would shoot the wedding to build up her wedding portfolio, along with her younger friend who's also building up her portfolio at cost. So all I had to do was to pay for the flights and hotel, along with a rental car. They'd get a free trip to California for the Memorial Day weekend, and I get 2 photographers for the wedding.
The bride to be was happy with this arrangement.
Neare
Well-known
Good way to go, as photographers having those contacts is useful.
An aunt of mine is getting remarried and so I along with around 5 other photographers in the extended family have been asked to bring our cameras along and take what we can. Cheap, free even and I'm sure between us we can pull off some nice shots.
A recent wedding I attended had a cool setup. They had what looked like a fairly basic photographer setup for the ceremony and beginning of reception, however what caught my eye is that they had disposable 35mm cameras on each table with a note encouraging guests to take turns taking pictures of anything and everything. I though that this was quite an interesting idea and could yield some really interesting and special results. For a small wedding as this was, I imagine the cost of this wouldn't have been very high.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Sounds like a good solution to me.
With a few years behind me here's what I thought about the topic.
My own first wedding - a few photos remain, taken by a professional, but they're buried deep in a trunk somewhere and have been retained only for the historical record. Never look at 'em.
My own second wedding - it was pretty informal and I took a lot of the shots of guests etc with a Nikon SLR, handing it over to an uncle in the church for the actual ceremony. 35 years later, never look at 'em.
A couple of weddings done as a favour for friends and job finished when negs/files handed over on CD. Didn't enjoy the weddings myself - too busy and under pressure, even with an 'assistant' changing films for me. Still friendly with one couple.
Recent daughter's wedding. 80 guests, some from overseas. Outdoors, formal(ish) ceremony but afterwards everyone cut loose. One of the guests is a close friend and a professional wedding photographer. I was forbidden to even raise my camera, being father of the bride. This friend does a great job. For $3.5k AUD she and her professional partner attended carrying enough heavy duty Canon digital equipment to satisfy anyone. They both worked steadily in the lead up and the ceremony, then our friend put her cameras down and enjoyed the fun whilst her partner continued to shoot the action at the reception. Our friend actually was in attendance for two days.
The album (big one for the couple, smaller ones for both sets of parents) and the DVD of images (any duds edited out) are great.
So I think your choice of two photogs as you've described fits well with our recent satisfactory experience. The main cost for us was to pay for the friend's partner's time (she was working, not a guest) and the considerable time cost for both in post production and getting the album printed.
The results are stunning and nothing like I would have turned out.
R
ruben
Guest
This thread is of interest to me in the sense that I always found weddings to be dramatic human events highly interesting for photography. Not boring photography at all.
But I would like to mention an element that has been lacking in the thread. True a good photographer can enhace trough his images a mediocre event.
But I do not consider weddings need to follow the lines of what is used to do and to my opinion there is always room for creativity and surprise in organizing the event. So, make a SPECIAL event, a different one, a creative one, and then the need for the best weeding photographers will cool down, as the event itself will fall upon the head of the photographer, so to speak.
My two cents
Ruben
But I would like to mention an element that has been lacking in the thread. True a good photographer can enhace trough his images a mediocre event.
But I do not consider weddings need to follow the lines of what is used to do and to my opinion there is always room for creativity and surprise in organizing the event. So, make a SPECIAL event, a different one, a creative one, and then the need for the best weeding photographers will cool down, as the event itself will fall upon the head of the photographer, so to speak.
My two cents
Ruben