Photographing weddings

[benm]

That's what I would call a Kodak Instamatic moment. (For those of you who don't recognize that the Kodak Instamatic was the P&S of the 1960's).

[Hansm]

As mentioned already by some of you. B&G do not want to spent to much money and in this digital time everyone can take pictures.
That is the overall thought of lots of people. I'm doing quit some Wedding shoots and lot of time people say: " Hey, that is easy money. Just take some pics put them together in an album and cash the money".
They don't see how intensive you have to work and concentrate not to miss the important moments.
If B&G would realize how intensive the job is they would never ask a friend or family member to take this responsible task. Not only in point of the expectations they might have, but also the poor guy/girl will not be able to party with the rest of the guests because there is no time for this.

If you go for the job prepare yourself well, know your equipment and check out the locations in advance, to find out what is (im)possible.

[rpcrowe]

After reading all the replies to Stephanie's question, I'm having second thoughts of going into weddings. I think I'll just stick to corporate events, product launches, and real estate brochures & websites for now.

Corporate events or just about any events along those lines are a great way to gain experience for wedding work. You can gain experience using flash in many different venues and in controlling groups and posing subjects. I had absolutely no problems in shooting my first wedding. Of course I had 16-years experience as a Navy photographer under my belt of which 10-years included a wide variety of event and portrait photography with a still camera. During the other 6-years, I was a cinematographer and combat cameraman. I had been shooting with the same gear I used at the wedding for 2-years previously, 5-days a week. I was totally competent in the technical details, experienced with the cameras I was using and was experienced handling people in an assertive but not bullying manner.

I knew very little about wedding photography and had attended very few formal weddings (my own wedding was a small intimate affair). I read a few books, looked at friends' wedding albums and attended several weddings at the base chapel, just sitting in the audience. From these sources, I made a shot list of the minimum shots needed to cover a wedding ceremony. I actually made a written check list of pre-ceremony, ceremony, post ceremony and reception shots. This list came in handy. I am sure that in the turmoil of a wedding, that I might have forgotten one or more of the prerequisite wedding shots. I kept updating the shot list every time I was asked for a specific shot which I thought might be applicable to other weddings and whenever I saw a wedding shot that I thought was unique. After all, imitation if the surest sort of flattery.

I shot weddings for many years thereafter and the list came in handy. I no longer carried it in my pocket, but just having the list was a way for me to remember the shots that I wanted. Of course, with today's photojournalistic style of wedding coverage (which I am not at all sure that I really like) a selection of formalized shots may not be the way to go. However, there are, with any wedding, some MUST SHOTS. The new wedding photographer should familiarize him or herself with these mandatory shots or face the wrath of bride and mother of the bride. By the way, the M.O.B. can be as fierce as an angry tigress about her daughter's wedding coverage. It is mandatory to please the M.O.B. because she often controls the purse strings of the wedding and can be a valuable resource for referrals to cover new weddings.

Finally... A great way to gain wedding business is to volunteer as the official photographer (free of charge) to various social and charity groups. I got a lot of my business because I was the official photographer at my local Veterans of Foreign Wars activities.

[RonH]

Is that updated avitar I see of you Donald the real you
Oh ... and I am glad that I don't have 'wedding courage' like my dad had ...

[Colin Southern]

Photographers! Can't live with them, and can't live without them.

Photographers; Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em either!

[Colin Southern]

They don't see how intensive you have to work and concentrate not to miss the important moments.

I might add that they're also "paying for what you know", not "paying for what you do" ... and that means paying for years of experience - years of practice - years of training - paying for the tog to use those skills to guarantee a good result.

[Colin Southern]

I was at a wedding reception this summer watching the photog work.I looked at my wife and said "I don't think they're going to be happy with the results".
Last month the mother of the bride brought me the disk from the wedding asking if I would go through the images and see what I think.
268 images and there are 12 or so that I can rescue and make decent prints with.All the photos taken in the church are beyond saving.Terribly underexposed and OOF.
Mother paid $500 for the work.

Out of interest Jim, do you know any of the throught processes behind why this particular 'tog was chosen? Or if he has other work that was sampled befor being given the job?

[Wirefox]

This is all pretty familiar stuff. I am probably going to get shot down for this but regardless of how poor the photographer was do they still not own the copyrights. For those of you tweaking these images in photoshop and printing them off I suspect you are in breach of copyright (especially if you have been paid for it). I know that the moral argument to enhance these images is clear but I have always been very cautious when someone asks me "can you do anything with these". After cruising many forums over the last couple of years I genuinely believe that 90% of these 'cowboys' are not villains. I honestly believe they have convinced themselves that their work is acceptable and this is bolstered by the 'great shot', you should do this for a living two a penny compliments you get in profusion on sites like Flickr (or some photographic forums for that matter).

For prospective married couples and/or their parents I strongly recommend that you ask to see more than one set of wedding photographs by the prospective wedding photographer and get it in writing that the guy who took the images you like is going to actually photograph the wedding. If you can try to contact previous clients most will be only to happy to provide an opinion of the work done. You will need to ask the photographer to make first contact with his or her clients. If the photographer can't or will not make an introduction tread carefully. And dont fall for the client confidentiality line. If he or she wants business and they are good at what they do they will have no problems arranging for you to phone an ex-client for a reference.

Almost forgot; do not ask a 'photography' mate's advise. It is rarely objective. If you and yours love the images that is all that matters. Just because they do not look pristine at 100% or he could technically have done better with a 135mm instead of a 50mm is totally irrelevant if you are delighted with the images yourself. It will add self doubt and could end up in a decision that leaves you with technically correct mundanity.

And as with any other sales pitchers beware of squeaky shoes and 'amusing' ties

[Donald]

This is all pretty familiar stuff. I am probably going to get shot down for this but regardless of how poor the photographer was do they still not own the copyrights.

Steve - you mean they DO own the copyright?

[Wirefox]

Ha, yes sorry. They certainly DO own the copyright unless it was signed over with the package.

[Jim B.]

Out of interest Jim, do you know any of the throught processes behind why this particular 'tog was chosen? Or if he has other work that was sampled befor being given the job?

Colin,I don't know but will ask.

[Jim B.]

For those of you tweaking these images in photoshop and printing them off I suspect you are in breach of copyright (especially if you have been paid for it).

Steve,a valid point.I checked on that before I commited.Photographer released rights to the images.

[Colin Southern]

Steve,a valid point.I checked on that before I commited.Photographer released rights to the images.

I might add the comment, 1/2 seriously, 1/2 sarcasticly, that the retouched images are likely to be so different from the originals that the original 'tog probably wouldn't even recognise them.

[mk00]

I might add that they're also "paying for what you know", not "paying for what you do" ... and that means paying for years of experience - years of practice - years of training - paying for the tog to use those skills to guarantee a good result.

Reminds me of a story I read about a car problem - old Bentley (or similar) pulls into a country garage with a problem. Mechanic of many years recognises the problem - fixes it in 15 minutes. Owner says - I'm not paying that - insert fee - for 15 minutes work so mechanic reverses the fix and says okay, get someone else to sort it out. Then reminds owner he isn't paying for the 15 minutes but the years of experience that enabled it to be fixed so quickly. Owner then has to get someone else to fix it at an even greater cost in time and money because they have to start the diagnosis from scratch.
It's something I've always tried to bear in mind about people who fix things or solve problems.