Photography - what you like vs what photographers like...?

elven

Hello lovely engaged people

Recently I've been helping out in doing some photography at a few weddings and I tend to stand back and get those candid, sneaky pictures when people don't realise I'm pointing the camera at them. I also like to shoot the details like the buttons on a dress or the table decorations/cake/flowers/jewellery because people have put effort into choosing them then years later, chances are they'd be forgotten about.

But what I'm really interested in is if real couples find this stuff a bit arty, and not something they'd be too bothered about, or if it is something you'd like to have a record of after the day is over, as well as the carefully posed shots of family groups? What is it that you are actually looking for, from your wedding photography?

taram

I suppose it depends on the couple? I espically love seeing candid photos of weddings afterwards, they say a lot more about the couple and their wedding than posed photos. Personally I'd like the small details to end up in photos, and would like all the photos but the group ones outside the registry office to be candid. But my mother was the opposite

bored and tired

i was sold on an arty picture, we went in for an engagement/family portrait, and he shoud us some of his work,

one picture was of a wedding party that went back to a pub, there was a croud of people in the background, the bride beaming, but the photo was of the father of the bride sitting at the bar, unaware of the camera, drinking from a coffe cup. it was in black and white, and i sware it was the best wedding photo i have ever seen. he should us some books, and the story albums all had little arty pieces in them that just screamed brilliant,

i cant wait for my big day, i know there is going to be big surprises when we go to view the pics,

Seoid

I think you should just try to capture EVERYTHING! A lot of the candid human or detailed object photos might not come out well but if there are one or two gems it would still be well worth it! Especially if you will be giving all of the photos to the couple (as opposed to a certain number of the best)
What else would you be during during that time? (when nobody's posing)

I would want the formal pictures and the 'arty' ones as well.

mikeanywhere

Seoid wrote: »

I think you should just try to capture EVERYTHING! A lot of the candid human or detailed object photos might not come out well but if there are one or two gems it would still be well worth it! Especially if you will be giving all of the photos to the couple (as opposed to a certain number of the best)
What else would you be during during that time? (when nobody's posing)

I would want the formal pictures and the 'arty' ones as well.

Very well put Seoid, it would seem that the majority of people are after both.

JohnBoy

not sure about 'arty' as such, but i'm looking at getting one or two mates who are into photography to just hang around for a bit and take random pictures, captures the mood so much better than the cliched bride and groom looking around a tree at each other type of stuff, all those millions of posed pictures really wreck my head, I've been at weddings where I would have thumped the photographer, some of them think they're running the day.

mikeanywhere

JohnBoy wrote: »

I've been at weddings where I would have thumped the photographer, some of them think they're running the day.

Not every photographer works like that and most of the time they are under instruction from the couple (more likely the bride) as to what to take etc.

JohnBoy

Oh I know, i was groomsman at a wedding last year and you hardly knew the photographer was there, she took lots of great pics, but yet seemed to be invisible.

I was also at one wedding a few years back where the photographer stood between the priest and the couple on more than one occasion during the ceremony