Wedding photography

Thoie

A friend was showing me some wedding photos earlier today taken by a "renowned" wedding photographer. As we've already determined, I'm no expert, but I really thought they were terrible. The bride's dress changed colour between shots (from dark grey to over-white), the groom's face was frequently obscured, half the photos were just crooked - I could go on.

I understand that wedding photography must be pretty stressful, but from witnessing some in action at weddings I'd at least expect some vague light metering, and I'd also have thought that a bit of post processing would be done before supplying the final photos. I can understand that a contact sheet would have some fairly rough and ready shots on it, but these were the final prints.

Apparently this guy's past work had been exemplary, so maybe he was just having a bad day, but even to my inexperienced eye there were some pretty shoddy mistakes in there. Is this common among wedding photographers? I'm trying to look for some way to excuse the photographer, so does anyone have any ideas?

Fajitas!

A lot of renowned wedding photographers are fantastic business men

Fenster

To be a professional photographer you must be a businessman first, a copyright lawyer second and a photographer third. I've seen my own share of terrible professional shooters, but they have the business acumen to make it as professionals.

City-Exile

My sister got married recently & I was very disappointed with the results from the pro. He had the most beautiful setting & seemed to get them in all the right places, but his results were very poor. A lot of people have commented that my shots were far more striking.

I was expecting to see plenty of the usual stuff, which there was, but he had no knockout shot of the bride & groom on their own. Seems he went for quantity over quality.

CabanSail

I was looking at some shots of a Model recently. I thought the Photographer must have been quite inexperienced as it looked like they were all shot with direct flash, whick made them looke flat & there were harsh shadows. I did a search on the name & found a lot of other examples which were mainly much the same. Apparently this is after many years of working in the industry.

Fajitas!

CabanSail wrote: »

I was looking at some shots of a Model recently. I thought the Photographer must have been quite inexperienced as it looked like they were all shot with direct flash, whick made them looke flat & there were harsh shadows. I did a search on the name & found a lot of other examples which were mainly much the same. Apparently this is after many years of working in the industry.

I see it a hell of a lot.

The majority of photographers just use flash without considering any alternatives.

To be a professional photographer you must be a businessman first, a copyright lawyer second and a photographer third. I've seen my own share of terrible professional shooters, but they have the business acumen to make it as professionals.

Add in socialite there too.

I understand that wedding photography must be pretty stressful, but ...

Only if you don't know what you're doing, where you're going next, or what you should be shooting. But then again...

Apparently this guy's past work had been exemplary, so maybe he was just having a bad day, but even to my inexperienced eye there were some pretty shoddy mistakes in there. Is this common among wedding photographers? I'm trying to look for some way to excuse the photographer, so does anyone have any ideas?

No excuses really. Don't have your bad days when you're supposed to be shooting someone elses big day. You're only as good as the feedback from your last wedding, and all those other sayings.

stcstc

you never really know what goes on for those photogs

I thinks its really a thankless task, I would never consider doing it


But to be a pro, its 85% business and 15% photography

and its very easy for someone to take shots when they are not HAVING to get them. I cant think of many worse ways to put me off photography for life than shooting weddings

I used to be a sound engineer, and people used to ask why i had a crap hifi. my response was always the last thing i want to do after being in front of a mixer allday when i get home is mess with the hifi. if that makes sense

Borderfox

I love weddings, great fun and everybody on my side and wanting their picture taken. With regard to the the photographer mentioned in the first post, I have seen some shoddy stuff that should never have seen the light of day in peoples albums. I would agree with the business comments too.

sunny2004

City-Exile wrote: »

but his results were very poor. A lot of people have commented that my shots were far more striking..

Just wondering, Why didnt you do it yourself ?

smelltheglove

I shot my first wedding yesterday and I have to say it was hard, very hard. i loved it, I had great fun and I took tonnes and tonnes of pictures and will only use half.

My own wedding photos were direct flash and highly posed so I was keen to use as little flash as possible. Even with sunlight though it was quite hard to maintain the same colour on the dress constantly as white reflects the light, however a slight adjustment of colour balance or brightness and contrast evens this out. I wish there wasnt much editing to be done but there is. Weddings are about perfection, even if there is a tweak of sharpness or softness there is always something more that can be done.

Wow though I really understand people saying it is hard now though. i had a groom who didnt really like photos, a bride who was extrememly photogenic and constantly smiling and a mother who was so happy she was constantly moving with the joy. Results are some lost photos due to subject movement, the slightest blur and I would bin.

I have noticed though even as samples on web sites photographers use photos where someones hand is mid movement and leaving a blur, I can't see this as acceptable.

I have to say though I can't wait to do another. I have roughly 220 great shots, and 10 - 15 'money' shots as I call them. The shot where it doesnt matter if you know the subjects or not, you just find it amazing. I only hope the bride and groom love them too.

City-Exile

sunny2004 wrote: »

Just wondering, Why didnt you do it yourself ?

Do you have family?
It was a fairly special day for me & no one wanted me to be working.
I certainly didn't want to be working.

sunny2004

City-Exile wrote: »

Do you have family?
It was a fairly special day for me & no one wanted me to be working.
I certainly didn't want to be working.

Not sure what my family status has to do with it. But you were taking photos that were more striking than the professional ? surely your "family" knew you were very capable and from what I can tell here the opinion is that the pros mentioned are not that good its a small step from striking shots to getting 24/30/40 for the album or was it that the pro took all the stress, allowing you to relax and get your striking images..

As for the family reference, hum, I have shot weddings professionally and also for family and still attended as a guest. Shooting a family wedding has nothing to do with professional wedding photography, its chalk and cheese, and sometimes the biggest downfall for budding photographer, simple reason is that at least 50% are connected to you in some way. they know you, they take instruction from you and if you know what you are doing they trust you. they respect you.. etc etc all of that list has to be earned by a Professional "stranger" photographer..

There is nothing like the experience of your first fee paying wedding with strangers, its something you never forget..

City-Exile

I wasn't just a guest, I was part of the ceremony.
I took pictures when I got a chance.
How would I have been in the family shots, group shots, etc.?

Borderfox

Photoshop yerself in Peadar

smelltheglove

I have to agree with you sunny about the first fee paying wedding!

I'm a little nerve wrecked waiting to see the reaction from the lovely couple. City, of course you couldnt take the shots. In a way though I can see how Sunny feels it may have been easier for you although I have also seen bad professional shots too.

I think this is a no win argument though. There are professionals out there that take great shots every time and others who don't. Also you can't always rely on the samples given. A photographer can show you 50 amazing shots from 50 different weddings but what about all the other shots you don't see? You just don't know until the work is done.

sunny2004

City-Exile wrote: »

I wasn't just a guest, I was part of the ceremony.
I took pictures when I got a chance.
How would I have been in the family shots, group shots, etc.?

Mirror's , just for the record it can actually be done unless you are in the immediate bridal party, as I assume you were not the priest, or a bridesmaid, then that leave best man and grooms-men, Excluding these positions ( you are only need for one or 2 images and a group shot, it can be done by either an assistant or remote. my point regarding the professional photographers still stands. The pro takes th pressure and stress away from other photographers..

EDIT.. its very important that anyone reading this realised I am not defending Professional Photographer. Their work does that for them and there are some "pro" shooters who I am convinced allow their guide dogs to hit the shutter release... If you get my drift.
MY point is simple, the pro takes the pressure off all professional or budding photo guests..

sunny2004

smelltheglove wrote: »

Also you can't always rely on the samples given. A photographer can show you 50 amazing shots from 50 different weddings but what about all the other shots you don't see? You just don't know until the work is done.

Very valid point, when booking a photographer you should always insist on seeing a FULL wedding. then another then another. and then ask if he has any weddings shot at your church and your reception... if he is worth his salt then its not a problem...

eas

interesting thread, but without seeing any of the photos ourselves it's hard to say.

I find with everything subjective some peoples art is another persons trash. I know my style of wedding photography does not suit all tastes, but am sure to explain this to potential couples and show them lots of examples. I'm also not afraid to say I don't think I'm the right photographer for them.

Harsh, direct flash can be an effective "style", check out Martin Parrs work for examples. Not to everyones liking, but it appeals to me.

having said that, I agree that there are a good amount of hacks out there. I may be one of them.

Borderfox

I have to say eas that its not often that I take a dislike to a photographer but Martin Parr really rubs me up the wrong way especailly after that Picture It show on Channel 4.

smelltheglove

I havent seen much of his work either. I can't really comment, I'm still learning, but I do find direct flash very easy to work with if you dont mind its effect. I mind the effect though, I think its flat, I like a picture to bounce out at me.

The problem I had with my wedding pics was the harsh shadows! In one particular I look like pinocchio as the angle of my face combined with the shadow on the dark side looks terrible, the worst thing is it was the best shot of my dress!

It is though peoples taste when done right however I think the issue here is bad photos, not a lack of excellent photos. There are some people offering themselves as pros and using blurred pictures as examples. Fair enough it may just be a motion blur of a hand but I would not call it a good photo if it was the main subjects hand. Also professionals with noisy photographs.

Borderfox

Depends on the circumstance with noise, no flash in a Catholic church means noise and lots of it. Just needs to be dealt with or used to enhance.

If you bounce your flash you will get rid of the harsh shadows.

DotOrg

stcstc wrote: »

I cant think of many worse ways to put me off photography for life than shooting weddings

if one likes shooting people, being allowed to be creative, meeting lots of new characters then wedding photography is great.

i love spending a day documenting someones life through my eye being as creative as possible. I see so many jaded old photographers work and wonder why they bother

smelltheglove

I agree with you Border. Definitely go for the bounce as much as possible and where not possible try go with no flash. The web site in particular where I sae these pictures though that shocked me included outdoors pictures with noise. Maybe the photographer forgot to change iso which can be done by us all, but these were the sample pictures on the website!

AnCatDubh

There is a problem with weddings - for most, its a one off - once in a lifetime gig. It aint happening again. As a photographer, you MUST get it right.

My own wedding snaps were fairly wicked. Strangely, at the time my wife was horrified but i was ok with them - you know; mans attitude - ah sure aren't they grand. Now, having considered the subject in some detail, i cringe each time i see them. Yet i think, and hope, that it will remain a once in a lifetime gig for me and my wife. So...... i'm stuck with what we got. We didn't do it on the cheap or anything. This was a professional. sheeesh....

The problem about being a professional is like golf. I gave up golf at the fine age of 14. Yeah.... i was useless at it, but never saw sense or reason or any enjoyment from beating a feckin ball around a field. (By the way - I appreciate others find that IT is their life). But i could tomorrow decide that i am a professional golfer; set myself up with a shop and all of a sudden there would be an 'aura' around me. The guy has the best clubs and bag - he must be good. A word of warning - don't take golf lessons from me. Not a good idea.

But the same with a photographer. In the morning i could decide that i am a professional photographer - Create a web site, Maybe open a shop, tout for business. If the punter doesn't check my work, check my credentials, check my history then they may get a 'crock of .....' if i don't perform on the day. They might also be lucky.

There should be two kinds of photographer identified by DNA or something - (a) the business man who can basically press a button (ok they probably will know a little more) and (b) the artist / creative spirit who loves/adores the end product of their photography.

With weddings it is important to maintain consistency such that your portfolio should represent something at a level and quality that you could reasonably expect to be reproduced for someone.

Fajitas!

Tbh, I RARELY use flash until the party itself, and when I do, I'm dragging the shutter down to 1/30 of a second, and underexposing the flash by 2/3's of a stop to 1 2/3's of a stop.

Natural light and reflectors all the way. Anyone I've worked with or for will agree

mikeanywhere

Everything depends on location, available light and the ability to know how to use your gear. Using or not using flash is down the individual and also the afore merntioned

eas

Borderfox wrote: »

I have to say eas that its not often that I take a dislike to a photographer but Martin Parr really rubs me up the wrong way especailly after that Picture It show on Channel 4.

you know what they say,there’s no accounting for taste. To each there own and all that. Here's one that I'm sure you'll love (and may have already seen) - click on the button for "equus project" on this page http://www.timflach.com/

smelltheglove wrote:

The problem I had with my wedding pics was the harsh shadows! In one particular I look like pinocchio as the angle of my face combined with the shadow on the dark side looks terrible, the worst thing is it was the best shot of my dress!

do you mind telling us how you decided on this photographer in the 1st place?

anthony4335

I am going to be doing a wedding in a couple of weeks. not sure why the couple did not want a pro, but asked me instead. I am bricking it a little. I do quite well on the photography side of things but have never done a wedding on my own ,and I am not very forward ,as I think that one of the things a wedding photographer need is to be very stern and forceful to get the shots needed. I am very interested in this thread and will be taking note of all tips, so I thank all in advance of any tips received. (any tips for wet days would be great as I need to plan for both)

RoryW

anthony4335 wrote: »

(any tips for wet days would be great as I need to plan for both)

buy umbrella(s) that are black and white so that the bride and groom can be kept dry and can be photographed whilst walking in the rain under the umbrella...

Fionn

i'd say if its just purely a business thing with no love or the love of photography lost or engulfed by the desire to make money your always going to see this sort of wedding photography. People get burned out too, maybe this photog is at the end of the line.
On the other hand as Borderfox pointed out if it's a challenging but rewarding and enjoyable experience then you've got it made - getting paid to do something you really like.
I have a few under me belt at this stage and yea they can be stressful but not in a negative way, i seem to work better under stress so it suits if it stops being fun or gets boring then i'll junk it!!

on the flash issue, i tend to have the flash gun on because it's more help when you move outdoors, if i do need it indoors it's always gonna be with a soft box on it or a reflector, bounce etc

Fenster

mikeanywhere wrote: »

Everything depends on location, available light and the ability to know how to use your gear. Using or not using flash is down the individual and also the afore merntioned

Ah c'mon Mike, pimp yourself a bit more! You've done some cracking wedding work.

smelltheglove

eas wrote: »

you know what they say,there’s no accounting for taste. To each there own and all that. Here's one that I'm sure you'll love (and may have already seen) - click on the button for "equus project" on this page http://www.timflach.com/



do you mind telling us how you decided on this photographer in the 1st place?

Hi eas, I never met the photographer before the day.

The girl I had booked ended up in hospital and we were notified at about 5pm the evening before the wedding. He was the only photographer we could get near us at such late notice. For this reason I would always be grateful to him though!


Anthony, best advice I can give after just doing my first is this, check out the venues first, if possible try to adjust your settings accordingly and make note of them. The light will be different on the day but at least you will know close enough to it and maybe just need a slight adjustment here or there. Plan the shots you want and make note of these also but prepared for them not to happen, bride or groom may decide on the day they don't want so many photos.

Where are you based, I'm sure there'd be people around grateful of the experience if you wanted a hand. I have 2 more in August but if I was free and close wouldnt mind helping you out either.

mehfesto2

I suppose any chancer with access to a DSLR, professional looking equipment and balls of stell can call him/herself a 'professional photographer' these days. Pity really.

My sister got two photographers in Rome for her wedding (they charge much, much less there compare dto here) and she got some stunning results. Really knew his stuff the first lad. Some great DOF pics and captured the children in a great way.

The main chap even had his own fancy car to take them to the colliseum etc., for some shots after the ceremony itself. He seemed to enjoy his job and it showed in his work.

tajzai

i would be so scared to do a wedding. every picture counts and the way how the guy you are talking about did so bad.. must sucked.

mikeanywhere

Fenster wrote: »

Ah c'mon Mike, pimp yourself a bit more! You've done some cracking wedding work.

Its nothing to do with that mate. I get sick and tired hearing about how people shouldnt use this or do that when its a load of bollox. Especially when they havent been to a location and have no idea of the lighting available at the time of the day. Also having good lenses will make a huge difference, no doubt about that so spend wisely if you can.

Rant over (for now)!!

Freddie59

anthony4335 wrote: »

I am going to be doing a wedding in a couple of weeks. not sure why the couple did not want a pro, but asked me instead. I am bricking it a little. I do quite well on the photography side of things but have never done a wedding on my own ,and I am not very forward ,as I think that one of the things a wedding photographer need is to be very stern and forceful to get the shots needed. I am very interested in this thread and will be taking note of all tips, so I thank all in advance of any tips received. (any tips for wet days would be great as I need to plan for both)

I've done several wedding videos for friends and family, and the only advice I'll give you if you're "not forward" is to ask yourself this:

when you go to a wedding do you really pay any attention to the Stills or Video guy? Thought not.

Just bear that in mind on the day and you'll be grand.:)

mikeanywhere

Main thing is to not rush things or else you will make mistakes.

Also nice thing to do is ensure you have water/coke/fanta/babycham etc and a sarnie with you between the church ad reception especially if its a distance as that way you can recharge your batteries too.

Borderfox

Of all the Weddings I have done they had fed me too

I know what you mean Mike, I have been in some horrible dark churches and made sure I was in it two weeks before the ceremony as the same time to check.

Didnt know you were partial to a bit of Babycham?

mikeanywhere

Borderfox wrote: »

Didnt know you were partial to a bit of Babycham?

shhhhh, people will talk!! :P

Paulw

Actually, I read a very funny discussion thread on DPReview about weddings. The guy posted saying he was a wedding photographer and was asking for tips/tricks to help him with his problem at weddings.

The problem he has - the bridesmaids and some female guests always seem to be hitting on him.

Damn, what a hard job he has.

spav

I'm getting wed next year and I could not believe the standard of shots that some supposedly high-end photographers were showing on their online portfolios. I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that you'd expect better from your mates' compacts in many cases. I'm pretty feckin far from being professional standard, but some of the stuff I saw on certain websites were the type of shot that I'd be too ashamed to upload to Flickr - I even saw one site where they had pictures where the bride was half-blinking, and they were charging €2500 for the day.

I ended up booking a girl who had nice stuff on her website and, as she's just starting out, was charging literally half what many others were charging. I'm confident she'll do us proud but in the unlikely event that she didn't, at least she isn't charging the earth.