I like collecting old photographs. There are several reasons: - I don't like to consign social history to the round file. - There were fewer photos (and other media) taken in the past than there are now, so images of ordinary life are rarer. - There are some periods and events in history which I like over others (I once had the privilege of looking at prints of images taken by one of Hitler's photographers given to an acquaintance as a gift). Most of the photos that I collect are of historically insignificant people. Yet I consider the photos worthwhile keeping, especially if they're about significant events. Nowadays, photography so cheap and ubiquitous and many photos are just happy snaps. But let's forget that and look at the average wedding. Most folks, whatever their income, will go to lots of trouble to get a well made wedding album. But for what? All that money and effort for what? Is your life that important that it needs that level of care in documenting it - or in documenting it at all? You think your descendants will care much? They'll have wedding albums of their own to pass down to their descendants who will have wedding albums of their own... It isn't that photographs are taken at weddings that's at issue. It's how and why they're taken. Whatever the event, no matter how trivial, a good photo is better than a crap one. We all would like to look back at our lives now and then. But surely we don't need to spend thousands to do this? I guess some people see it as social status (read vanity) to have an expensive photographer at their wedding. For me the image is most important. The subject serves the image. So the trivial can be made great via the camera. Whatever the subject is doesn't matter: it's raw material for excellent photography. Perhaps our desire to be immortal is responsible for our outlandish spending habits (weddings at least are for the living, but can't the dead at least be dead in peace?). So what say all of you?