Wedding photographers websites....Why so bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arith

I prefer some of yours Chris; I would have thought a cardinal rule was, 'never ask a bride or groom to act'. Some of Jerry's photo's look like they was intended to be in a film like 'Dallas the movie'.

---

Love the analogy!!!

I thank you for the compliment, and I think it all boils down to the individual shooters style. I grew up shooting PJ and I shoot PJ every week for a regional online newspaper. It's who I am. Whereas, many shooters that want to be commercial/editorial photogs, but they shoot weddings to pay the bills and let their influences roll over into their wedding shots.

It's kinda like the monthly contest we have on here. Every month it is the long exposed landscape that wins. It's what people just getting into photography want to shoot. Every one wants to be Ansel Adams. It's a lot easier to take a picture of a scene that doesn't talk back or have other ideas. It's all on the photographer! If the lighting is wrong, they have to come back another day. Up until recently, you didn't have that option with weddings. It was one day, you had to get what you need that day or you let your client down. Nowadays, the trend has become to shoot wedding photos a various venues on multiple days making the photos much easier to construct in the fashion you want. If the lighting sucks, simply come back another day for bride and groom photos. Just focus on getting guest reaction/interaction the day of.

To get back to the topic of this thread, I am very cheap as wedding photogs go. I give full disclosure as to my abilities and training to every client. I am not a Craigslist shooter, nor will I ever be. I rely solely on word of mouth and therefore only shoot those who have seen my work and feel as though I am shooting in a style and at a price point the want. I always have a second shooter on every wedding I shoot (except my sister vow renewal/heck, she didn't even pay me:eek:) There are a ton of other people like me, but the idiots that charge $2500 US and up that put out images of lesser quality than mine with a Canon Rebel and 55-250 give people like me a bad name. It erks me! It really does. I shoot over 1000 frames every week, practicing and learning, and then see a thread such as this basically reducing the vast effort I have put in to nothing. It assumes everyone that has a bad site (me included) is simply a hack and trying to profit off of other stupidity. I just wanted to give a little insight from the other side and make sure all are represented here.

BTW, Colin and others say do not even think about attempting to do a wedding, but I disagree. As long as there is full disclosure, I see no reason why anyone should not try it at least once. However, with that being said, keep in mind the enormity of the task you are about to perform is. This (used to be) a once in a lifetime event with no chance for a do over if you "screw it up". I think every wedding should have more than one shooter.

Looked to me that Roger Clark is the one of those 3 most likely to get his exposures and processing correct. Scott Javie ?????. The other one not too bad but I would wonder.

A friend of mine did some wedding photography. He was mainly into commercial work and only did weddings when he used film. He used medium format for that and attracted people who wanted a real photographer and were prepared to pay for it. One of the things people noticed about his shot was that everything came out correctly including clothes. People often spend a fortune on them for weddings. Word of mouth got him more weddings than he wanted to do really. He was also good at organising people, spotting poor poses in any of his shots, finding suitable scenery where ever they were taken and keeping people happy. I was reminded of that recently. Family shot at my son's university graduation ceremony. Taken by a company with many photographers. Back grounds set up correctly etc and the photographer made me put my hands some were sensible but didn't tell me that my suit collar was away from my shirt at the back. Colours and processing ok apart from no shape in blacks - graduation gowns. Bowens brolley flashes and meters as well. With the photo pack about £95 for what is basically 3 shots one of which taken "live" on the stage comes with a warning that it might not come out. Large well respected company. They only charge if you want it. The other 2 shots are paid for on the way in. Wedding photography is really a much more difficult job. Don't think I would fancy them doing mine. Or 2 of the mentioned ones either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

Looked to me that Roger Clark is the one of those 3 most likely to get his exposures and processing correct. Scott Javie ?????. The other one not too bad but I would wonder.

---

Like I always say, different strokes for different folks...

Jerry is universally recognized as one of the top 10 wedding photogs in the world... Hence, this proves my premise that what some people love, others simply just don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoffstriker

But Steve, this is the epitome of what high-priced wedding photography is today for most people. They want to feel as though they are at an actual photo-shoot with 5 assistants running around changing lighting all day long.

You can't knock the fact that his shots are well posed and crafted. However, you need a certain type of bride and groom to pull this off along with the ability to shoot many of the shots prior to or after the wedding day actually occurs.

Here's a gallery of some shots I did for some friends. Only problem is, I was simply a guest. I was not the wedding photographer, so I hid in the very last pew (snuck up a couple of rows for a few of the shots, LOL) with my 70-200 and basically just snapped away with no worries for how the photos turned out.

---

Lovely photos Chris. I noticed that the Bride didn't smile that much.

No she didn't... Nor did my buddy Adam... Kinda bummed me out, since the were all grins at the reception... However, my wife threatened "bodily harm" if I were to "drag that damn camera around all night when were are suppose to be having fun and dancing!!!! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoffstriker

Jerry is universally recognized as one of the top 10 wedding photogs in the world... Hence, this proves my premise that what some people love, others simply just don't like.

---

And what does he charge per wedding (average)? How much time does he spend marketing (or how much money on marketing)?
A lot of people don't care about having a photographer at their wedding and are happy to use what the guests take, or use a friend/contact to take that role.
If you are narcissitstic enough to want all the frouhaha of having the wedding rehearsed and planned to every moment and get half a dozen heavily staged shots that bear no resemblance to reality - and prepared to pay several thousand dollars to get a well known, top ten photographer to take your pic, so you can drop the name for the next few years, then go for it.
Has nothing to do with the fact that there are a heck of a lot of photographers out there who are vastly less expensive and can still give the client what they actually want.
As for a second shooter - you pays your money and you takes your chance. What if BOTH photographers crap out for some reason, why reduce THAT risk and hire a third, a fourth, just to increase your odds.
Heck, why not have several wedding days planned to increase the chances of having just the right weather.

All in all, you pays your money and you takes your chance - as long as it is done ethically, full disclosure and the like. Allow for and informed decision.
I am not in the position fiscally to develop a website. My salesmanship skills (and I have ethical issues selling myself at a high price, I've never seen an image I considered worth more than $100 ish) are not at a point where I would want to 'sell' my services at a price high enough to warrant a second shooter.

When I was researching wedding photography I looked into hundred of websites/books and thousands of images. As far as I was able to assess, the main difference between a $2000 and $5000 was a few staged shots.

Graham

I think maybe I should be asked, so I could turn them down. But maybe I could work with a good girl and her boy, it is all hard to do when your frightened of you own image.

I just know I can do it. ;)

One of the things that erks me about the "template" wedding (and photography) web sites are the ones that insist on displaying all your album images in a square box, mis-cropping most pictures in a most random manner in the process. :mad:

This was one of the main reasons I went PBase over, say, Smugmug.

I decide on my crops and I don't want a puny web site publishing my work badly!

Something for anyone here looking for web site to bear in mind ....

Well, for now i can not offer the best advice on photography but it concerns websites and any programming-related issue...please feel free to contact me. I will be very valuable to you in that regard.
All the best!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamH

And what does he charge per wedding (average)? How much time does he spend marketing (or how much money on marketing)?
A lot of people don't care about having a photographer at their wedding and are happy to use what the guests take, or use a friend/contact to take that role.
If you are narcissitstic enough to want all the frouhaha of having the wedding rehearsed and planned to every moment and get half a dozen heavily staged shots that bear no resemblance to reality - and prepared to pay several thousand dollars to get a well known, top ten photographer to take your pic, so you can drop the name for the next few years, then go for it.
Has nothing to do with the fact that there are a heck of a lot of photographers out there who are vastly less expensive and can still give the client what they actually want.
As for a second shooter - you pays your money and you takes your chance. What if BOTH photographers crap out for some reason, why reduce THAT risk and hire a third, a fourth, just to increase your odds.
Heck, why not have several wedding days planned to increase the chances of having just the right weather.

All in all, you pays your money and you takes your chance - as long as it is done ethically, full disclosure and the like. Allow for and informed decision.
I am not in the position fiscally to develop a website. My salesmanship skills (and I have ethical issues selling myself at a high price, I've never seen an image I considered worth more than $100 ish) are not at a point where I would want to 'sell' my services at a price high enough to warrant a second shooter.

When I was researching wedding photography I looked into hundred of websites/books and thousands of images. As far as I was able to assess, the main difference between a $2000 and $5000 was a few staged shots.

Graham

---

When I read "in the world" I wondered if it really meant in America.

Interesting comments about not having to get it right on the day. I have been to 3 in the last 2 years and all were shot on the day. Here (UK) the normal thing often seems to be wedding, reception, a night where the reception is held if it's a hotel type place and off on honeymoon next day. Seems the US must be different in that respect as well. :D Glad I am married if it's getting like that here too. You can guess who took mine and frankly for what photographs cost on the basis of the skill provided I wouldn't accept any other method.

-

The jerrie website is a perfect example of 'change the pictures quickly so the people don't get bored' and I stopped watching it very quickly. Baffle them with quick changes so they don't realise just how ordinary the photographs are. Yuk!

Did everybody notice the s on the end of photographer suggesting to me it is him and others doing the work. So you might not get jerrie for your $5000.

Here is a great blog post by one of the greats, Zack Arias. I consider this a must read for all those thinking about wedding photography in any way.

Is this more along the lines of what you would look for? Granted these photographers aren't concerned with your typical wedding shots, plus you probably don't want to spend what they are charging for one or two photos.

http://jezaphoto.smugmug.com/Weddings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoffstriker

Here is a great blog post by one of the greats, Zack Arias. I consider this a must read for all those thinking about wedding photography in any way.

---

As someone said on his blog, that gives a wonderful perspective on the whole thing. It's good read for anyone in interested in developing their thinking about photography, not only wedding photography.

The need to flatter in order to get paid, the need to win the approval of people who do not normally think much about pictures, and the performative role the photographer is obliged to play in the proceedings, must whittle down the number of photographers willing to work within the restrictive conventions, limited horizons, and saccharine values of this decayed social institution.

Don't be subtle about it, Christopher. Just tell it as you see it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brocken

The need to flatter in order to get paid, the need to win the approval of people who do not normally think much about pictures, and the performative role the photographer is obliged to play in the proceedings, must whittle down the number of photographers willing to work within the restrictive conventions, limited horizons, and saccharine values of this decayed social institution.

---

LOL - couldn't have put it better myself! A lot of that goes for portraiture too, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

Is this more along the lines of what you would look for? Granted these photographers aren't concerned with your typical wedding shots, plus you probably don't want to spend what they are charging for one or two photos.

http://jezaphoto.smugmug.com/Weddings

---

I actually like their site quite a bit. I will keep it in mind when I update mine this winter. Thanks for the link.

Chris

I Like this guy's photos, but whether it is to everyone's taste especially for wedding photos I doubt.
He is one of the premier wedding photographers in Sydney and I think you can see that he will charge like a wounded bull. In this case you will get what you see and you will pay for it.

He shoots with a Leica and uses a Noctilux 50mm lens that is f0.98 and often shoots wide open, so you get a very limited depth of field. They have a unique look.

I am a complete novice at websites but this one seems to work well.

http://expressions-photo.com.au/gallery/weddings/

Graham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoffstriker

I actually like their site quite a bit. I will keep it in mind when I update mine this winter. Thanks for the link.

Chris

---

Chris,

Wikipedia has a nice write up on the wedding photography styles (traditional, photojournalistic, fashion based). I first learned about the differences after reading a book about the WPPI (Wedding Portrait Photographers International). The WPPI has yearly contests with strict guidelines on presentation, format, and style. If you have a chance look up the WPPI website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_photography