Are professional wedding photos really needed?

If I can take some of the heat from this and give you my real-life experience:

 

I've posted in another forum that our photographer did not

show up for our ceremony so we were forced to rely on our friends. Bless them, they all pitched in and we wound up

having tons of photos of the day. Most of the shots were from P&S digitals, some from older automatic film cameras, and

two friends had prosumer SLRs (a Nikon and a Canon, respectively, though not sure which models).

 

The problem? Not one of them had the actual skills to take proper shots. There were plenty of "good enough" photos, and

some are even good enough to be be quality with some Photoshopping. Still, basic concepts like "depth of field", and "reduce to simplify", and

proper exposure were mostly absent, as was knowing instinctively where to move in order to get the right shot.

 

Bottom line: there's lots more things that too many people take for granted. As most people here are saying, it's not just the equipment.

 

The art is in the technical skill but also in having the actual experience to know how to use that technical experience. The

"most important day of your life" is not the time to do on-the-job training. THAT'S why it costs so much.

Personally, I think people pay too much for a lot of things, but its their money, and I'm sure others think the same of me. My parents are looking forward to their 60th anniversary. I believe they paid some long dead professional $20 to take one shot of them at the altar. It's the only photo they have of their wedding. So I guess the style of wedding photography we see today isn't all that important in the long run. Still, they do cherish that one posed shot.

 

Today professional wedding photography can be found around here (40 miles from Sara Palin's home town -- whoo-hoo!) for anything from $500 to $5000, and more I suppose. People can prioritize how much they want to spend, for differing levels of quality and service. It's their choice.

"Are professional wedding photos really needed?"

 

The answer is no. No, they're not really needed. But what's your point? Is cable TV a need? No, but it's nice to

have. Is going out to eat occasionally a necessity? No, but it fun to do.

 

Different people have different priorities; some truly don't care about quality photography for their wedding (I

know a few), some don't have the budget, and for others it is top priority. If you value it, you pay for it.

 

If you find nothing wrong with "having amateur coverage" - fine for you (but don't complain if the photos turn

out dark or out of focus). For some people it's one of the most important parts of the wedding planning. Nothing

wrong with that either. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it doesn't mean one is right over the other.

 

Something else to think about - I don't think too many people look back at their professional photos and wish

they had never had them done. I do know of many people (including personal friends) that had Uncle Bob, or a

less skilled, cheap photographer shoot their wedding, and really wish they had good photos of their wedding.

For the record - we've never shot a $3000 wedding ($2500, yes, but not $3k). Ok, that's a little silly. But, here in Middle

Country, USA, the seriously over-saturated market has a few well established photogs that CAN charge that, but cost of

living here is way WAY lower than every where else. And I do mean everywhere. So, yeah, tossing numbers like $3000

around is rather silly.

 

And this has been mentioned, but not as emphasized as other points. When people are hiring a photog, or talking about

it like here, they're usually just thinking of the wedding day. Really, they're just thinking about the ceremony and the

reception, which in total may be as little as 4 hours total, and that includes the 3 1/2 hours of partying! There's so very

much more to it!

 

Most people are not taking into consideration the ACTUAL hours we wind up working. For a "4 hour day" I'm actually

putting in closer to 10 - 14. Are we going to shoot preparations? Are those going to be at home or a salon? There's an

additional 2 hours. If they're a couple that enjoys taking pictures, then we're taking extra time for fun & romantic stuff on

the wedding day. Another hour.

 

We haven't even hit the post processing yet! The amount of time to sort through the 2 or 3 cameras shooting all day

long and get out the closed eyes or slightly missed focus... And then take the great ones and turn them into ART....

designing albums, just getting ready for presentation..... That "4 hour day" just became 12 hours on "the" day PLUS

another week of post!

John Henneberger , Nov 23, 2008; 12:06 a.m.

 

"I'm an Uncle Bob! I'll shoot any wedding for free as long as there's an open bar!"

 

You're hired!! Just hand over the digital negs when your done so I can have them printed at Walgreens. I'll make sure to tell everyone who made the pictures so you can get the credit."

 

You've got a deal! As long as you have that 2009 vintage ThunderBird wine, I'm a happy man! Just $1.95 per bottle!

Best way to get great wedding photos:

 

Give everyone attending a point and click disposable camera:)

We all agree that a lot of people who own an SLR don't really know how to use it and also lack real interest in photography (they buy those cameras for the same reason people hire pros, to be able to say they did what it takes to ensure good photos, probably they are embarrassed because they lack the skill). However if your friend has experience from event photography, uses a flash diffuser, and posts lots of good photos on social event sites, in my mind you can trust her to cover the reception. There is no risk at all. The problem is, if you are clueless about photos, it will be difficult for you to judge if your friend can do it.

Depends on the individual wedding couple. I had my father shoot our wedding pictures on B&W film then I processed and printed the photos myself. Myself I have a bigger problem with so called professionals selling their services to couples and then coming to forums to get the info on how to actually shoot the event. I have no problem with uncle Bob/Joe who has probably shot family weddings for the last 20 years. It is only normal that not all couples want to hire a pro and I would rather see a young couple use a friend or family member than get themselves into debt. That goes for other services too. I think there is a lot of pressure on young couples today to provide an expensive party for their family and friends which they can't really afford to do.

David, your original post reads:

 

"if several of your friends are hobbyists, you will get decent shots of all of your guests at your party. "

 

and you have now moved the bar to:

 

"However if your friend has experience from event photography, uses a flash diffuser..."

 

I believe that you have tried to make a point only to realise that you have overlooked many things in your statement.

 

Lastly, is it fair to ask a 'guest' to take photos as the main photographer? Then possibly have to post process and

print the photos? I personally think that the bride, groom and guests are at the wedding celebration to 'celebrate'. In

my opinion, if the couple want a pro, good on them... if they don't... good on them (see how my response to both

decisions is the same? As in, its not up to me, its up to each couple to make their own decision?).

An additional thought about those people who "can't tell a really good photograph from an Uncle Bob brand snapshot." Many of those are young people. For a couple in their early 20's, their brains are still developing (really! science is showing that that's actually very true), and their view of the world is still very half-baked. Many people don't develop a better-informed sense of style and an appreciation of the nostalgic power of nuances and narrative form until later in their lives. You know, later... when they reach over for that wedding album on their tenth anniversary, or want to inspire their grandchildren.

 

A 23-year-old couple getting married today will NOT be the same people, in terms of aesthetic sensibilities, when they're 33. But they won't have the chance to go back in time and hire a decent photographer later, when they've got a more refined appreciation of a story well told and an artist's rendering of a compelling moment.

I'd say it's eventually a value-for-money situation. Between a free amateur taking photos, an entry level pro charging say 500 bucks and a top-level pro charging 2000 bucks, you have to make a choice that you think you won't regret 1 year later. With the cost of SLRs coming down, there are more people who can afford to pursue their talents, and in the long run this is sure to drive down prices. So people'd still be able to hire a pro and also be able to afford it.

Do you need to get married?

 

Go to Home Depot and buy a ladder!

"The problem is, if you are clueless about photos, it will be difficult for you to judge if your friend can do it."

 

David, it's YOU who seem to be clueless about photos here.

 

The whole premise for your statement here is that with modern cameras and halfway talented guest photographers, a

couple can rest assured they'll have decent photos of their wedding without spending thousands. "Decent" being the

operative word. You may have seen some "decent" photos taken by amateurs at other weddings (how many have

you been to?) but there are so many variables involved in a typical wedding, that unless you have a professional with

lots of experience, expensive glass and a quality camera platform, you can't guarantee the quality of what you'll wind

up with when the dust settles. I'll give you some examples...

 

Some weddings take place outdoors under a gazebo at dusk. Some take place in dim churches with restrictions on

where a photographer can go. A guest with a sub-$1000 DSLR and the pop-up flash will NOT be able to produce the

results of a pro with the right gear. Hand them a shoe-mount flash, and the results may improve a bit, but they'll still

have redeye problems and direct flash. Hand them a flash diffuser or bounce card, and the shots may improve a bit

more, but that's assuming they have enough hands-on experience to work with all of this gear. And then, do they

know what to expect in the ceremony? Will they be futzing around with the camera, or will they be ready to shoot at

the key moments and capture them beautifully? How hard will they be willing to work to be in the right place at the

right time, if they're not being paid? With no "skin in the game", and no real-world wedding photography experience,

they could be content to let the couple walk by, and shoot them going down the aisle from the back, instead of being

where they can get the best view. And, with a cheap DSLR, the low light performance will result in very grainy, blurry

images, that is, if they know enough to increase the ISO, and usually with those cameras, it only goes to 1600

where it really looks bad. And, the ISO setting on cheaper cameras is usually buried in a menu and hard to

adjust. And, this doesn't even get into white balance problems, lens quality, and flash output.

 

Now, let's talk about group shots. An amateur who's never done anything like this will simply line up the various

groups of people without regard to their height, weight, appearance, symmetry of the group, posing angles, etc. and

just shoot them, probably not knowing how to work with a flash to get the best lighting. A professional will arrange

people very carefully, understanding how to put fatter people behind skinnier people to hide weight issues, how to

turn women in a more flattering way, how to arrange people by height for better symmetry, and a million other little

details, so that the photos are much more pleasing to look at, and will make the subjects happy with how they look.

A pro will ensure that all of the must-have predetermined shots are taken. A pro will use quality lighting to ensure the

best photos, stuff that an amateur simply will not have.

 

A professional has the equipment and skill to handle the most demanding and variable lighting conditions. A

professional has many real-world weddings in his or her experience and knows WHERE to be and WHEN to be

there, and knows WHAT to do to capture it in a beautiful and elegant way. It's that expertise that people are paying

for, and it's why we charge so much.

 

Now, if all of that is important to a couple, they'll seek out a pro and hire them. If the couple is like you, they'll wind

up with whatever they get, which will, in no way, be comparable to what a pro can do.

Disclaimer: After reading Bob Bernardo's post, I decided to just skim all the other posts. So, here goes:

 

David, with all due respect, I think your post was a bit offensive to other people (I personally think it was a bit arrogant). Are you *happily* married? I plan to do so next year, and after reading a bit on the Weddings thread, I feel quite scared (for lack of a better word) about choosing my photographer if I do hire a pro.

 

Wen Chang gave his camera to his sister to shoot the wedding. I plan to do the same myself (my sister, not Wen's -- let's make that clear). The difference is that my sister has more talent than me (which is saying a lot -- both about my sister's skills, a savant with a camera, and mine, a shutterbug who only happens to get decent photos because I shoot a lot and happen to luck into a lot of situations) and a wizard with PS.

 

I don't mind people spending too much on something. It helps the economy, and chances are, they earned their money -- they earned the right to spend it. A wedding day is too special to miss out on. A wedding day is still something that is sacred to some people. A wedding day is still the one day that you want to remember, and a good photographer is the one person who will help you reminisce on that day. "Till death do us part" are still words that some people hope to promise someone else.

 

Bashing the amateur, unprepared, and misguided photographers? Hell yeah, I'm with you on that. I seriously cringe at another "Need lens for wedding" or a "first wedding this weekend -- need help" post. Bashing a wedding's significance? That's a bit out of line, bro (to put it mildly).

 

PS.

 

On a lighter note, Bob Bernardo, I'm desperate. Are you serious about that? :D

It's indeed a value judgment. I think the problem with recording the first year of marriage is simply that it can

be only done by someone who is close to the couple, whereas for one day (the wedding day), it is possible to hire

someone special with expertise in recording events. Certainly it is good to buy a camera to record life but

unfortunately it also takes quite a bit of dedication to learn photography well.

 

Rather than think about what is the average charged by professional wedding photographers, what is more

interesting and telling is the average amount of money that couples spend on wedding photography over all people

that get married,

instead of just over those who hire a professional photographer. I bet the true average over all couples is less

than a thousand.

I hear you David and agree with you to a large extent. Nowadays, it seems like every single guest has a camera and pictures are firing off every second. It's part of the event where as i suppose back in the old days, you rarely seen a camera at all. As to wheather a pro is needed or not depends on the expectations of the couple. I'll agree with you that they could have decent results if they asked all their guests to provide what they took throughout the day. Compare that against a lot of hired hands that are out in the market place and they probably would not know who took what. However, there are some true professionals out there that treads the unbeaten path and truly are capable of producing results that only the professional knows how to produce. If a couple is able to recognize this, then they will more than likely have to pay for that unique talent to get the results. This is where the filed seperates between everyday uncle bob's out in the market place and those that have a unique talent and purpose. The choice is theirs. I choose to drive an old ford explorer non-loaded. I could buy a newer car loaded with automatic features.....but to me, a car is a car and i could care less as long is it goes down the road and is dependable. A lot of folks think along those lines when they hire their everyday photographers for photography, when they could have saved money and just asked their guests to give them the photos they took on that day to receive basically the same results.

 

Here is a photo from a wedding i'm currently editing from a couple of weeks ago.....i wonder what all these cameras produced at the end of the day?

I hear you David and agree with you to a large extent. Nowadays, it seems like every single guest has a camera and

pictures are firing off every second. It's part of the event where as i suppose back in the old days, you rarely seen a

camera at all. As to wheather a pro is needed or not depends on the expectations of the couple. I'll agree with you

that they could have decent results if they asked all their guests to provide what they took throughout the day.

Compare that against a lot of hired hands that are out in the market place and they probably would not know who

took what. However, there are some true professionals out there that treads the unbeaten path and truly are capable

of producing results that only the professional knows how to produce. If a couple is able to recognize this, then they

will more than likely have to pay for that unique talent to get the results. This is where the filed seperates between

everyday uncle bob's out in the market place and those that have a unique talent and purpose. The choice is theirs. I

choose to drive an old ford explorer non-loaded. I could buy a newer car loaded with automatic features.....but to me,

a car is a car and i could care less as long is it goes down the road and is dependable. A lot of folks think along

those lines when they hire their everyday photographers for photography, when they could have saved money and

just asked their guests to give them the photos they took on that day to receive basically the same results.

 

Here is a photo from a wedding i'm currently editing from a couple of weeks ago.....i wonder what all these cameras

produced at the end of the day?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/8282940&size=lg

Do we need to live in a nice home.........no

Do we need to drive a nice car..............no

Do we need to wear nice clothes...........no

 

But we WANT to...........so to hell with those who say we shouldn't...........

Bottom line:

 

- If you are not a poor student, you should get a pro for the ceremony & family formals, as (a) indeed it is tricky to get good photos in a dark church without experience and (b) pictures with parents who might shy away from amateur camera are very important. This does not apply if you know somebody who has experience shooting your church choir in the same church and is well-prepared and willing to get good ceremony shots with a test run.

 

- For the rest, if you know people who are good at people photography and enjoy it, get 1-2 good friends to cover reception and involve them in planning and preparation to increase their output. Let them send you digital files and do the selection and printing, uploading yourself, to filter out pics that will annoy relatives.

 

This only applies if you have skilled friends. One has to see that good photos of all of your guests probably exist, it cannot be your goal to have perfect pictures of all of your guests made on your wedding day. It is nice if everybody gets documented and if there are lots of good pictures of guests involved in the action.

 

D

The only ones that know if a pro is needed are going to be the bride and groom (and maybe a nosy mother-in-law!). It all depends on what they want (as well as their budget).

 

If you rely on P&Shooters you can bet that you will get a bunch of boring, standard eye-level perspective, flash burnt pics. A guest with a Prosumer might get better results, but you cannot expect him to be there all the time, since he is a guest after all and might want to eat something, do some dancing or, in Uncle Bob´s case, he might be to wasted to continue taking pictures.

 

If paying 2 or 3K is out of your league you might ask a wedding photo begginer from whom you can check his references and might do a decent job for quite less pay.

 

And about the "cheesy cake shot": I am sure that most photographers take a fairly standarized pic, thus making it cheesy, of this moment since it is to crucial and the costumer might go ballistic if you take a more "artistic" approach, but i have seen AMAZING images just by taking a different or risky angle and point of view.

Another thought that comes to mind is .. the decision might depend on your looks .. I'm thinking of a couple I know where the man is handsome and athletic man and the woman quite obese. This is an area where a pro can really make a difference, by optimizing shots but also by taking care of the filtering that could otherwise slightly upset a happy couple / family. Of course an experienced friend can filter too, but there is a risk of pictures starting circulating and discussions. If the best possible pictures are still disliked, with a pro it is less critical.

. Amateurs with point and shoot cameras do not produce good pictures. Professionals spend years on the learning curve to make great images.

My point is, a) hire the best shooter you can afford; you'll be glad you did, and b) there are a million little things an amateur can do to ruin your wedding photos; there are a million little things a pro can do to make them extraordinary.

"($2500, yes, but not $3k). Ok, that's a little silly... ...So yeah, tossing numbers like $3000 around is rather silly."

 

I'm wondering if "silly" might describe a whole paragraph being dedicated to critiquing a random example which is an

amount similar to what various photographers charge. A greivous affront apparently. If only to live up to the charge of

sillyness, I'll give my best Steve Martin... "Well, Excuuuuuuuuussssseeee meeee!" :)

This is not a 'provocative thesis' at all. Maybe provocative because you lit up this thread with comments.

 

Would you have your friends and relatives do your root canal? With no novocaine and pliers?