back alley
IMAGES
carrying the lighting gear was a killer...just too much stuff!
maybe today with such high iso ability doing a wedding without all that extra gear might be bearable...
maybe today with such high iso ability doing a wedding without all that extra gear might be bearable...
bobbyrab
Well-known
I'm in my 14th year as a wedding photographer. It's provided me with a reasonable living so I've never tried too hard to expand into other areas. However I find as I've just turned 50, I'm looking more seriously at what other avenues I should explore. Physically it's quite demanding, but also the trend seems to be going towards a generation brought up with digital, everyone's gone mad with terrible PS actions that I'm not prepared to follow, and as has been said, everyone with a DSLR and a web site is a wedding photographer now.
I've always been primeraly a natural light and candid/unposed photographer, with afew little posed sessions of 3-5 minutes plus half a dozen group shots.
Even winter and evening functions I'll mainly shoot without flash and never take studio flash, but I do take far too much equipment, really all I need are the Canon bodies and lenses from 16-200, including fast 35,50 and 85. That will cover everything I need, but I also take an M6 and 4 lenses, plus a swing lens panoramic, but they are all rather self indulgent on my part, the panoramic produces unique images, but no one would book me or not based on those, they're just a nice bonus for the client, I'd be quite happy to photograph whole weddings with Leica M's butI find SLR's just a little better suited to all the situations you come across at weddings, from moving subjects, occasional long lens use, and high iso capability.
I'm very experienced and like to think I'm quite good at what I do, I get commissioned a few times a year by Condé Nast for Brides magazine here in the UK, and I've photographed quite a few weddings for people who are photographers themselves or work in the fashion industry where there are a lot of photographers in the guest numbers, always slightly more pressured but it's quite a nice feather in your cap to get them.
I do shy away from looking too much at wedding photography or membership of any wedding forum or society, I find a lot of it all rather silly.
I do however get very defensive of the way wedding photographers have become the whipping boy for other photographers to mock. The number of times I've read about the non wedding photographer, who goes along as a guest and gets those shots that the main photographer is too busy to get, and the couple loved the prints more than the official photos. They then proceed to show the seven dull and unflattering images they've managed to get and you shudder to think what they didn't show.
Sorry if that sounds a little harsh, but there's a lot of implied, " I could shoot weddings really successfully, but it's too much of a compromise of my artistic vision", posts whenever weddings get mentioned. They're actually a difficult job to do well and require a lot more than competence with a camera. I think where a lot of photographers fall down is not understanding that one of the main requirements is they should be flattering, the lighting can be perfect and the composition great, but it's no good if the bridesmaid is laughing like a horse.
There, rant over. I feel better already.
I've always been primeraly a natural light and candid/unposed photographer, with afew little posed sessions of 3-5 minutes plus half a dozen group shots.
Even winter and evening functions I'll mainly shoot without flash and never take studio flash, but I do take far too much equipment, really all I need are the Canon bodies and lenses from 16-200, including fast 35,50 and 85. That will cover everything I need, but I also take an M6 and 4 lenses, plus a swing lens panoramic, but they are all rather self indulgent on my part, the panoramic produces unique images, but no one would book me or not based on those, they're just a nice bonus for the client, I'd be quite happy to photograph whole weddings with Leica M's butI find SLR's just a little better suited to all the situations you come across at weddings, from moving subjects, occasional long lens use, and high iso capability.
I'm very experienced and like to think I'm quite good at what I do, I get commissioned a few times a year by Condé Nast for Brides magazine here in the UK, and I've photographed quite a few weddings for people who are photographers themselves or work in the fashion industry where there are a lot of photographers in the guest numbers, always slightly more pressured but it's quite a nice feather in your cap to get them.
I do shy away from looking too much at wedding photography or membership of any wedding forum or society, I find a lot of it all rather silly.
I do however get very defensive of the way wedding photographers have become the whipping boy for other photographers to mock. The number of times I've read about the non wedding photographer, who goes along as a guest and gets those shots that the main photographer is too busy to get, and the couple loved the prints more than the official photos. They then proceed to show the seven dull and unflattering images they've managed to get and you shudder to think what they didn't show.
Sorry if that sounds a little harsh, but there's a lot of implied, " I could shoot weddings really successfully, but it's too much of a compromise of my artistic vision", posts whenever weddings get mentioned. They're actually a difficult job to do well and require a lot more than competence with a camera. I think where a lot of photographers fall down is not understanding that one of the main requirements is they should be flattering, the lighting can be perfect and the composition great, but it's no good if the bridesmaid is laughing like a horse.
There, rant over. I feel better already.
Richard G
Veteran
Nice post Bobbyrab. My respect you have, be in no doubt. It's a tough gig and the bases have to be covered, in real time. Nice to hear you are a photographer's wedding photographer. No mean feat.
StevenJohn
Established
I've done a few weddings. It isn't for me. The combination of being polite, charming, and yet firm is a difficult balance. The timing is critical and often the lighting is poor.
oftheherd
Veteran
Bobbyrab, my hat is off to you. Not that you need it.
bwcolor
Veteran
I've great respect for those that can gracefully cover a wedding. I did so, but not gracefully, as a means of paying for my room, board and tuition in the days of shooting with a Kowa 66 and a pair of Ascors. Uncle Charlie is drunk, mother is stressed beyond belief and the entourage is grossly overweight. Congratulations to all of you that can keep them happy. Nice posts above.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Hi bwcolor!
Yes, I remember the 1970's and many weddings were as you describe.
However, since DWI/DUI laws have been enacted and some folks get to know how costly it can be, not just monetary but in lives snuffed out, things have changed at weddings. Lots more traffic on the roads now!
Rarely do I see anyone having too much to drink. The stakes are just too high anymore. Other issues crop up though. Blended families, Mom or Dad with a girlfriend/boyfriend more common now than back in the 70's.
My last wedding a few weeks ago, the FOB drove his car home, got a ride to the reception and had a ride lined up back home just in case. He didn't get drunk. He had fun!
All in all, I saw hardly anyone who even got a little tipsy at weddings I was lucky to be the photographer! When my wife & I got married in 1977 you could of poured my Dad into his car! My Mom drove him home!
Yes, I remember the 1970's and many weddings were as you describe.
However, since DWI/DUI laws have been enacted and some folks get to know how costly it can be, not just monetary but in lives snuffed out, things have changed at weddings. Lots more traffic on the roads now!
Rarely do I see anyone having too much to drink. The stakes are just too high anymore. Other issues crop up though. Blended families, Mom or Dad with a girlfriend/boyfriend more common now than back in the 70's.
My last wedding a few weeks ago, the FOB drove his car home, got a ride to the reception and had a ride lined up back home just in case. He didn't get drunk. He had fun!
All in all, I saw hardly anyone who even got a little tipsy at weddings I was lucky to be the photographer! When my wife & I got married in 1977 you could of poured my Dad into his car! My Mom drove him home!
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Did my first wedding in 1971 and my last one in 2011. I always enjoyed doing them, until one day, I didn't. I didn't have anything new to say with my photography, so it was time to quit.
Sparrow
Veteran
I only do them with my arm up my back ... thankfully all the cheep friends are married now and there only a few of there daughters un-hitched in one way or another, it's surprising how quickly they grow up ...
kuzano
Veteran
Local Wedding Photographer Blows It....
Local Wedding Photographer Blows It....
I bought a Mamiya 645 camera from a Wedding Photographer, but somewhat after this incident.
He went Digital (hence the film camera sale eventually). After getting familiar with his digital gear, he did a wedding and shot the whole thing on one 32 Gb card.
Got home and found the card to be bad and lost all his images. Fortunately he had his assistant shooting on of his Mamiya's alongside and recovered from the problem.
Lesson learned, he used the film backup method for about another year.
Second lesson learned, he rotates 8 Gb cards during weddings now.
Third lesson... most of the general public can't tell the difference between digital and film, particularly if you lose all the digital images
Funny, but I never have purchased a card larger than 8 GB since hearing this story, from another photographer.
Had a great time with his old Mamiya Pro 645.
Moral.. something about "all your eggs..." and a "basket" in there somewhere.
Local Wedding Photographer Blows It....
I bought a Mamiya 645 camera from a Wedding Photographer, but somewhat after this incident.
He went Digital (hence the film camera sale eventually). After getting familiar with his digital gear, he did a wedding and shot the whole thing on one 32 Gb card.
Got home and found the card to be bad and lost all his images. Fortunately he had his assistant shooting on of his Mamiya's alongside and recovered from the problem.
Lesson learned, he used the film backup method for about another year.
Second lesson learned, he rotates 8 Gb cards during weddings now.
Third lesson... most of the general public can't tell the difference between digital and film, particularly if you lose all the digital images
Funny, but I never have purchased a card larger than 8 GB since hearing this story, from another photographer.
Had a great time with his old Mamiya Pro 645.
Moral.. something about "all your eggs..." and a "basket" in there somewhere.
hellomikmik
Well-known
I do not "shoot" weddings, I am a part of the ceremony.
FrankS
Registered User
I used to do weddings but eventually it got old. I did it to prove myself (to myself) and for the cash to buy more gear. I always did it this way: 35mm for colour neg film, medium format gear for black and white. All shots were done with 35mm, the good ones were shot again in B+W. my main 35mm camera was a Nikon F4, the medium format was mainly Hasselblad. The last few weddings I did were with RF cameras, Leica/Konica Hexar RF and Bronica RF 645/Mamiya 670.
MartinP
Veteran
I was once asked "Do you do weddings?" while photographing in a twelfth-century church, back in the UK. Not so illogical perhaps, but at the time I was balanced fourteen feet up on a health-and-safety-rules-non-compliant platform making detail transparencies of some small carvings between an arch and a pillar. I assume that is not a normal position from which to make wedding photographs. I declined the possible job. Curiously, that was also the sort of time when any format smaller than 6x6 was deemed too small for quality work. Some people still used sheet-film for wedding portraits.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
I do not "shoot" weddings, I am a part of the ceremony.
flexibility is life...
???
not flexible enough to see it my way?
flexibility is life...
???
not flexible enough to see it my way?
Nokton48
Veteran
I used to do weddings. Did close to a hundred, then decided to hang it up. The money was good for a long time, clients were very happy, but digital (and the economy) changed the business for myself and my photographer friends.
Here is an old website with some old wedding work of mine. I used four Hasselblads.
http://hassydan.tripod.com/
Here is an old website with some old wedding work of mine. I used four Hasselblads.
http://hassydan.tripod.com/
daveleo
what?
I've shot 4 weddings in my life (for no pay, family and friends) and found it to be a horrible experience. The people loved the pictures (it's incredible what sh#t that people like, esp when they are not paying for it), but to me it was boring boring crap, so I hated it and told everyone "my fee is now $5000 to walk in the door with my camera".
I could go on, but you get the point.
I admire greatly you folks who shoot weddings.
A postscript: I once attended a wedding as a guest and had an old Leicalllf with me for my own snapshots. At the party after the wedding, the pro photographers noticed me sitting at my table taking hipshots of dancers, etc. (I never once got out of my seat.) And they kept an eye on me and every time that I raised the camera to my eye, they stepped aside and let me pop a shot. I know that was because I had that camera with me. . . . the inconspicuous Leica ? . . . . I think not . . . .
I could go on, but you get the point.
I admire greatly you folks who shoot weddings.
A postscript: I once attended a wedding as a guest and had an old Leicalllf with me for my own snapshots. At the party after the wedding, the pro photographers noticed me sitting at my table taking hipshots of dancers, etc. (I never once got out of my seat.) And they kept an eye on me and every time that I raised the camera to my eye, they stepped aside and let me pop a shot. I know that was because I had that camera with me. . . . the inconspicuous Leica ? . . . . I think not . . . .
FrankS
Registered User
A postscript: I once attended a wedding as a guest and had an old Leicalllf with me for my own snapshots. At the party after the wedding, the pro photographers noticed me sitting at my table taking hipshots of dancers, etc. (I never once got out of my seat.) And they kept an eye on me and every time that I raised the camera to my eye, they stepped aside and let me pop a shot. I know that was because I had that camera with me. . . . the inconspicuous Leica ? . . . . I think not . . . .
Same thing happened to me. Got much respect from the digital wedding pro while using my leica M2 as a guest.
maxwell1295
Well-known
I do and have been for the past 4 years. In fact, weddings and wedding related work is the only stuff I shoot digitally (Canon 5D3 and a mix of Sigma & Canon lenses). Pretty much everything else I shoot is on film. I would describe my style as documentary although I do mix in some setup/staged/posed photos.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Check maxwell1295's web site if you want to see what good wedding photography looks like.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
I do that once a while as backup when a friend is overbooked. never use rf because fast moving sync wedding program these days and memory cards are cheap.
The quantity trumps quality at the first go. the quality is the production people's job. if you can't produce enough for post production selections, you are out.
On average 6 frames per minute are required to submit, even when none is selected for the album or print. Also for the guests, print on site.
canon 1dx is normally the rig.
The quantity trumps quality at the first go. the quality is the production people's job. if you can't produce enough for post production selections, you are out.
On average 6 frames per minute are required to submit, even when none is selected for the album or print. Also for the guests, print on site.
canon 1dx is normally the rig.