I've just seen the future...?

<p>I didn't believe it until I saw the pictures yesterday.<br /> <br /> A local wedding photographer here in Dallas is offering 6 photographers with Point and Shoot (Canon G9 & G10's) to shoot weddings. I had coffee with a friend of mine yesterday who showed me some telephone pics she shot and it looked like a Chinese firedrill with all the people involved. Now this isn't a case of 6 individual photogs with P&S cameras (I know, I know, the G9/G10 isn't more advanced that most P&S...I have one myself and love it...but still...) shooting separately, the pkgs for this photog range from 3 to 6 "Photographers" with P&S cameras. <br /> <br /> (I'm not going to list the photog's website after seeing a recent post that blew up on this forum because I live here. Who knows, maybe she's onto something with her 'What I lack in quality, I make up for in quantity' approach. If this catches on, I may be working for her one day...so don't ask me to burn my bridges just yet :-)<br /> <br /> Has anyone else seen this in their area? It's not a huge leap, I suppose, to sell "quantity" of pictures when quality seems to be increasingly difficult to come by. Could this be where our profession is headed?<br /> <br /> I did see a couple of the G9/G10's with what appeared to be 430EX flashes mounted...probably for the formal shots? This situation begs the question - 'What would you rather have: 6 - $500 photographers or 1 - $3000 photog?' I can't argue with the notion that 6 photog's provide a LOT of coverage, don't they?</p>

<p>There's also safety in the redundancy. If one of the 6 falls ill, and one of the cameras die in the middle of the ceremony, there're still 4 others to snap it all :-)</p>

<p>It's a race to the bottom.</p>

<p>Nish & Ian, I agree with both of your comments. The "redundancy" consideration is a pretty good one...so what if you lose a few images along the way?<br /> <br /> Ian, yes, to me it seems to be characteristic of the 'downwardly mobile' photographer.<br /> <br /> I had to think about this a while before I posted it. At first, it just seems crazy (to me). But the more I think about it, the more I suspect there might be a market. It would be like a party for my friends. I could get 5 friends with cameras together and ask if they wanted to make $500 each for shooting a wedding/reception. Gosh, my friends would take that opportunity for $150 I think...'cheap friends'.</p>

<p>LOL at the OP & replies.<br>

But, we shot video at one wedding where there were, apparently, 3 photographers. The main w/ his SLR and on-camera flash, and 2 assistants shooting w/ P&S cameras. <br>

We spent the time they were shooting formals wondering why the 2 w/ the P&S's were standing right next to the main. Oh well.</p>

<p>"Race to the bottom" <em>That's</em> funny.</p>

<p>WOW - is all I have to say - being just south of you in Houston I have not see that here yet... it is sort of the walmart of the wedding business... interesting concept as technolgy grows it will be our talent that separates us from the 6 photogs with P&S...</p>

<p>I haven't seen such a blatant push for quantity, but I have noticed the trend for wedding photographers to use more and more second/third/fourth shooters. Among younger photographers, it's like a party, with friendly competition as to who can get the coolest shot. And it's something younger couples understand--the social aspect is important. Ironically, the horde concept goes against the wedding journalism concept, which used to be shouted by everyone and his brother as the top goal when shooting weddings. How can you be unobtrusive and a fly on the wall when you have 3 or 4 bodies with clicking cameras swarming around?</p>

<p>However, it is a valid approach--both the second/third/etc. shooters and the 6 shooters with PS cameras--if it sells, well...</p>

<p>I've read about a lot of photographers is the war zones ditching their DSLR's for the P&S zooms, mainly with the Zeiss lenses.</p>

<p>What also concerns me is the upcoming market with still video, such as the 5D mk2. Will wedding photographers be expected to shoot video too? I think so, if the cameras have the capacity people will expect you to offer it.</p>

<p>When the economy is tight, the middle market is usually squeezed the most. I think this idea is driven by those forces. In such circumstances there are usually three options to for the middle to move:<br>

<br>

1. Move to an up-market piece of the pie<br>

<br>

2. Jump into the low end market and fight tooth and nail with the “Discounters”<br>

<br>

3. Create a niche market.<br>

<br>

I think this is just taking appropriate technology and marketing the third option. That does not mean I believe it will work, but I do find the concept very interesting <br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p>A large part of your objection seems to come from an unstated disapproval of the <em><strong>cameras.</strong> </em><br>

And, you don't say whether or not the photographers are <em><strong>competent</strong> </em> either.</p>

<p>Would you feel the same if the offer was to the more upscale market, offering accredited photographers using what you might see as "better" gear, <em><strong>AND</strong> </em> charging a higher than normal price?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No I agree it's the walmart photographer.....how annoying would that be for the bride, good lord it would be like the circus has come to town.hahahaha I bet that bride doesn't get a lot of clear video with all those photographers hopping around like rabbits.</p>

<p><em><strong>"it will be our talent that separates us from the 6 photogs with P&S..."</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

Not necessarily. It is more a "chips" or "straws" question. ("fries" or "mash")</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>In Kerala (a aouthern state in India where I come from), most weddings have 2 videographers (one from the bride's side, one from the groom's), sometimes a 3rd videographer (sponsored by the bride's or groom's friends), in addition to 2 official photographer teams - one from the bride's side and one from the groom's - each team having 2-3 people. In addition it's fairly common for cousins and friends to snal as many shots as they want to - some with P&Ss and some with SLRs. OF course the weddings are fairly large scale - 500-750 people won't be uncommon. Unlike other Indian states, weddings in Kerala only last a single day. So multiple photographers won't be unusual there.</p>

<p>Hmm,</p>

<p>6 photogs is a lot of bodies swarming around.<br>

I take a P&S to every gig and often use it for details and odd ball stuff. As they have become more robust and the optics, lag times, and file have improved, I see them becoming more mainstay for us all as they get better glass, more DR, faster and cleaner etc., etc.</p>

<p>I certainly don't see it being a bad thing, just not the main thing. It may depend more on the trend of brides who don't care so much about the quality/aesthetic, but more about the coverage/quantity and the emotions/feel of the day.</p>

<p>It's kind of akin to the trend of brides putting throw away camera on every table to get as many pictures as possible for a cheap price. I guess it could be looked at as a "positive" for a bride who would rather have 2000 not-so-great pictures rather than 500 great ones. Not sure who would want that...but I'm sure they're out there.</p>

<p>Again, not necessarily. <br>

<br>

The G9 and G10 have sophisticated Flash dedication, a good quality lens and FL range to accommodate most wedding shots, I understand they both capture RAW.<br>

<br>

It is an assumption, and way outside the facts presented in Christopher's original information, to extrapolate that these particular six Photographers are less skilled than any other Photographer with Professional DSLRs, Medium Format, or a Leica Rangefinder.<br>

<br>

There is also no correlation to placing throw away cameras on the table to later collect a random collage of the guest's efforts.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>@Betty</p>

<p>The 2000 not-so-great to possibly-great shots from the 6 people are guaranteed</p>

<p>The 500 great shots may not be - even the best photographers may not have a style that everyone appreciates. [Example - that lady who recently said she's charging 10K + for a wedding. Some of her pics looked very good to me - but some of them were pretty crappy - so I can't help wonder how the bride who had to endure those crappy shots must have felt assuming she has my taste too]</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Maybe you can have them fill in for each other like at Le Mans 24h or tag team in and out like pro wrestling?</p>

<p>i guess im different but i think it would work! the quality of those p & s cameras is really darn good! and with that many guys u can capture a lot more of the emotions then a single or two man team could ever. if u assign each guy to different things, u wont get any overlap and they wont get in each others way.<br>

say one on bride, one on groom, one brides family, one grooms family, one on far/wide shots and other on tele shots! would come out awesome.</p>

<p>I have seen worse. The last habit to win the cheap market (I have seen people advertising it for 500-1000 dollars, all included). It means the studio hires a couple of young students, give them a a camera body and a 18-200 zoom, ask them to take 1000 pictures each (fire like hell), then give 2000 shots to the couple and ask them which 100 ones they want in the wedding album.</p>

<p>Now Luca...you talkin' 'bout Bella Pictures again :-) Oh no, I'm sorry, Bella charges a lot more than that...</p>

<p><em><strong>"I have seen worse. The last habit to win the cheap market . . ." </strong></em><br>

<br>

Yet again . . . I am at a loss as to how you can come to this conclusion or comparison:<br>

<br>

I read <em><strong>nowhere</strong></em> in Christopher's original post that "pkgs for this photog range from 3 to 6 "Photographers" with P&S cameras": have any price point or target market attributed.<br>

<br>

?<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p> . . . maybe I am missing some of the implied humour . . . ? </p>

<p>Pro Wrestling Tag Team was funny . . .</p>

<p>Sorry to get all technical here but those Canon P&S cams have tiny, noisy CCD sensors.</p>

<p>LOL! The G9's sensor is slightly smaller than 8x6 mm !! The pixels on the G9 are packed tighter than a wh*re h0use (cat house)on dollar day.</p>