Are professional wedding photos really needed?

[david_ob1]

I would like to state a provocative thesis:

 

The many voices in this forum and on web sites that wedding photos must be let to a professional are wrong. The

importance of these wedding party photos is overstated.

 

A lot of couples would never buy a DSLR kit with external flash and extra lenses for $1000 to cover their first

years of marriage, so why should they spend such a sum on covering every relative on their wedding day?

 

In the old days with film you couldn't expect a friend or relative to spend a large sum on film and processing

just like that and people got into arguments about this .. this made it more meaningful to engage someone for the

job.

 

Today there are so many cameras around, if several of your friends are hobbyists, you will get decent shots of

all of your guests at your party.

 

From looking at pro results, I have noticed that a lot of the family formals where heavily retouched, I guess

elder relatives have to be pleased to keep in business. There are few spontaneous pro pictures (perhaps because

budgets are restricted).

 

Many people are not able to tell the difference between a good photo and a bad one. When looking at photos the

main point they check is that they themselves look ok. Precisely because they cannot judge photo quality they

hire a professional, then they can say they did what they could.

 

I agree that it can make sense to have a pro take formal portraits and cover the ceremony. Cutting the cake is a

really cheesy photo though and who really needs this moment in the highest imaginable quality? If you know an

amateur who has good equipment and runs some tests beforehand to ensure nothing goes wrong, I find nothing wrong

with having amateur coverage of the entire event.

[victoria_harris1]

I guess I completley disagree. Coming from someone who was married a little over a year ago, the last thing that I wanted was an amateur covering my event. Weddings are a really important day, and even though you think shots like cutting a cake are cheesy, I think that if your hiring someone who knows what they are doing they can really take a memorable shot that your willing to keep forever. Some of my favorite pictures from my wedding day are from our reception because our photographer did a great job capturing us in the moment, as the night played out. Hiring a friend to take pictures with their point and shoot is not going to match up to images taken by a professional who is expirienced and knows what they are doing. There are big differences and honestly isnt the entire point of having a photographer come to your wedding to capture your special day? Even if that is at the reception with shots such as cutting the cake, the first dance, or the bouquet toss, which may be cheesy but important to many. And the good photo bad photo thing, if someone actually cares about the images they will get on their wedding day most likley they will shop around before to see what kind of photographers are out there, and trust me if they do that you can tell a difference between someone who has been doing weddings for a long time and someone who picked up a camera at the store a week ago.

[curt_kalkstein1]

Certainly, a lot of the wedding business has exploded out of control, but even in this day of high divorce rate, people still go into marriage as if it's a once in a lifetime event.

 

Why plunk down all that money on one day instead of the first years of marriage? Because there is no one marquee event in the first years - or any - that is 1. So important, AND 2. Brings together so many important people. Yes, the birth of a baby compares - or is even more important - but how many women want to be photographed with teeth gnashed and swear pouring down their faces?

 

The wedding day is a unique celebration, with people who might not ordinarily be together. The emotion runs the gamut. It's only a day, but in a way it's a microcosm of a lifetime.

 

It seems in the last 10 years the importance in spontaneous wedding photography has increased greatly, so there are probably more people capable in this area than you think - which makes it all the more essential to have a skilled professional.

 

Yes, there are those who are not able to tell good from bad, but these typically aren't the people spending $3,000 for a wedding - maybe not even $1,500. But, keep in mind that while there is a good chunk that can tell the difference, but just as important, there are a lot of people who can see the difference but can't put words to it - is it lighting, is composition... - they just know one picture is better than another. These people just might spend $3,000.

 

Yes, it's hard for even me, a photographer, to understand why someone would spend - or charge - $12,000 - but I might feel differently if I were fetching that fee.

 

 

As I acknolwedged, the wedding industry in some ways has swelled beyond reason, although 30 years ago were people doing justice to this monumental day by having just one group picture outside the church and a few reception shots?

 

So, is anything wrong with hiring an amateur for wedding photography? No. Not if you don't mind amateurish results. It depends on what the individual wants. But, the entire approach can't be dismissed out of hand.

[Matt Laur]

Well... what a relief, then, that we're still in enough of a market-driven economy that photographers can risk their energies and fortunes on offering such services, and customers can decide (or not) to pay for them. If your <i>real</i> thesis is that some people are marketed into buying things they don't really need, why not be less disengenuous about it, and just recommend that they not hold a formal wedding at all?

<br><Br>

I mean... why pay a baker? Can't Aunt Sukey just make a layer cake from a mix? And, can't Cousin Johnny play the oboe he was assigned in 4th grade music class, instead of hiring that professional string quartet or swing band? And, who needs a nice dress? Anything mostly white from Wal-Mart, right? In fact... skip the whole thing! Just put on the sweats, and head down to town hall for a civil paperwork marriage, and send a couple of cell phone pix to grandma's AOL account. Then, years later, the couple can look back fondly on that day, and remember that they were frugal, and saved several thousand dollars - which they put into their 401k, instead. Now <i>that's</i> romantic!

[jim_z]

Are professional wedding photos necessary? No. Are high-quality photos needed? YES!! While I've seen

some lousy stuff from a few professionals, overall using a professional increases the odds of getting high-quality

photos.

 

That said, the truth is a lot of people out there are clueless about what makes a "good" photo and really could save

themselves some money going with a non-pro.

[rffffffff]

You are assuming too much... these days an amateur that has good equipment and ran some tests beforehand IS a pro and many instances.

 

relying on random amateurs to get good shots is a bad idea that doesnt really work, and relying on someone who is pre arranged and essentially responsible for the wedding pictures is either seriously imposing or essentially the same thing as hiring someone.

[2yellowdogs]

Are you married, David? If not, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to let your friend Frank or your uncle Bob shoot your

wedding for you. Or how about your daughter's? After all, as everyone knows, it's the equipment, not the person using

it.<br><br>

 

In fact, why don't you just rent a D700, SB-900 and a 28-70 and give it to someone you know who <i>everyone</i> says

takes great pictures? I just know your wife will be very pleased.

[david_ob1]

I read that it is imposing towards an amateur to ask .. I guess a lot of people who have good skills are happy to be able to put their equipment to use from time to time and use wedding opportunities to maintain and develop their skills ...

 

Also I read that it is cheap to give wife amateur photos .. my question .. which world do you guys live in? .. you are talking about taking photos for 3 000 dollars .. so the rest of the wedding would be around 15 000 perhaps .. Well if you are well off and your parents made some wise investments of course it might not be that much of an issue. but people for a lot of people with respectable professions such as teachers or whatever .. for them to spend 3 000 .. actually I think they don't, it's just the talk in this forum.

[sherijohnson]

David, I think what you are trying to say is that there are people who have different ideas of what is important to them. Some people that have a lot of money to spend on a wedding are going to be that much more interested in hiring a professional to cover the event and provide professional products to the couple after the wedding is over. Not everyone is interested in the same things and not everyone has the same budget. There are pro's in different price ranges though and there are always photographers breaking into wedding photography that are going to offer their services for a lot less, however the results may or may not be the same depending on their background in photography.

[hassy501]

David, you are erroneously trying to lump ALL wedding coverage, budgets, lifestyles, passions and desires of a free market into one "easy to wrap" up bundle.

It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

In a free market society, EVERYONE has the right to choose what they want to spend their money on. YOUR feelings on what a bride should have or not have makes no difference to anyone but yourself.

 

And, you seem to be judging all quality of work based on YOUR personal observations, which once again doesn't amount to a pile of beans.

 

I'm the first to admit that there are "people with cameras" calling themselves "professionals" who provide shoddy work and products and service....only to make a few bucks to supplement their lives. Then there are some excellent one's producing outstanding work.

 

How do YOU manage to lump them all together and judge the entire profession based on your narrow perceptions ?

 

If a bride wants to hire a photographer who has the vision and skill to create art of a once in a lifetime event, who's to say she's wrong or shouldn't ?

 

Some people are just more educated and understand and appreciate the value of art and and artist. Others simply don't. I suspect you are the latter. And that's fine, just don't apply your lack of artful appreciation to the public in general.

 

I love America where a free market allows this type of business exchange to occur.............

 

You throw out the figure "3000.00" or so as if that's some high end amount.....when really it's pretty average.........

That just shows how little you know about the business.

 

But thanks for a thread that will produce some thought provoking posts.............

 

Too bad the original subject matter is a poorly dictated personal opinion without any real facts to support it.

[DickArnold]

I no longer do weddings and have not since 2002. I only did them for seven years. First of all, I did quite a few low priced

weddings that I contracted for a couple of hours shooting. I did one wedding where there was only a bride, groom and my wife

as a witness even though he wore a tux and she a beautiful white wedding dress. I think I charged them 200 bucks for an hours

work. I shot the wedding on a cliff at dusk with the Atlantic as a background. They got high quality large pictures that they

ordered by the piece and paid by the print. An amateur could not have done much of anything in that waning light neither in terms of skill or

equipment or depth of field to get the ocean.

Not everyone charges 3000 dollars all the time. I also did large weddings where there was an expectation of a lot of pictures like more than

five hundred with formals and candid photos of the preparations and the reception including dancing and toasts etc. I have done

weddings where every guest got a point and shoot and we all shot the wedding and I even lined them up behind me a let them shoot their own

versions of the formals. We actually had a good time. Even though the bride and groom had all those

P&S pictures they ordered a bunch from me and were thrilled with what I gave them. I was a newspaper photographer as well at the time and

believe me you may think

candids are easy but they are not if you want them to look good particularly when the dancing is in dim light. How many guests are the bride

going

to let into the dressing

room and yet I got some of my best and softest portraits using available window light in those kind of settings. One very

important facet of a good wedding endeavor is the continuum. My strategy, along with many other photographers, was to shoot

along a continuum from dressing to departure and organizing the presentation along that time line in order to tell the story of the

wedding and document it in an album. I would spend eight hours at the wedding and several hours processing and deliver proofs within a week.

I

charged a justifiable fee for those high time weddings. If I did two weddings on a weekend I had a weeks' work to deliver the goods There are

people who want this attention and level of service and are

willing to pay for it. I have been married a long time and we prize and treasure our pictures. As long as there is a market there

will be wedding photographers. David Ob if you don't agree with it that's fine but don't generalize. My neighbor drives a Porsche Cayenne.

That's

her choice. I would never spend that kind of money on a car but she has every right to do so. Maybe she will let me drive it one

of these days. I had a good friend who was a justice of the peace and gave me a lot of small referrals. I never turned them

down and I never scalped my customers. I realized there are people who could not afford big stuff and because I worked at a paper I learned to

be very fast with a camera. There was a Gazebo near

the ocean that made a great venue and background and those customers got high quality ceremony pictures for very

reasonable prices because of the beach and the blue ocean background and, as I said, I worked fast. If I did the ceremony and formals and

spent two hours they got charged

for my time plus enlargements. Most

of those orders were for 5X7s which were very reasonable. If I were still in business now, in terms of the economy, I think I would be doing a lot

more small bargain weddings but people are still getting married at the same rate and not so many people are buying Porsches but they are still

around. Some people will let amateurs shoot their weddings and that's fine but in my long experience you usually get what you pay for and

sometimes, even with a so-called professional, you don't; but that's what all of life is like not just weddings.

[steve_c.5]

David, I guess you're the sort of bomb-thrower who comes into a forum like this and tries to stir up a little controversy. Well, you seem to have done that. There are a number of regular pros who frequent this forum that are probably out shooting a wedding this evening (making a good living too, and bringing joy and happiness to others), and haven't seen the post, so I imagine when they come back in, they'll give you their opinions too.

 

It seems that your purpose with this post is to minimize and belittle the importance of what we pros do to earn a living. And, there are plenty of brides out there who, like you, don't seem to understand the importance of the art and business of wedding photography. They go out and find some buddy with a shiny new camera and kit lens, and they get what they pay for (usually very little).

 

If you truly can't see enough difference between amateur photos and professional ones, or can't understand why people pay a professional to document this most important event, then why are you wasting our time here? Are you scolding or demeaning us and our profession? What do you hope to accomplish with this? Do you expect us all to smack ourselves in the head and say, "Cripes, what WERE we thinking?", sell our gear on Ebay and give up this silly notion of wedding photography? If I do, my three children will certainly not get to college, I assure you.

 

Have you ever heard the expression, "different strokes for different folks"? Just because you don't see the value of what we do, doesn't mean MILLIONS of other folks out there would agree with you. They don't. Perhaps you're the sort of guy who would take his bride to one of those quickie drive-thru wedding chapels that are popular out west. Why waste a bunch of money on frills and photos? Cut the cord and get 'er done!

 

In short, you're entitled to your opinion on this, but most people would say you just don't know what you're talking about.

[DickArnold]

BTW David I looked at your posted pictures. Look at mine. I don't post my wedding pictures, however, as I think my customers

deserve privacy.

[picturesque]

"Are professional wedding photos really needed?"

 

No--in the world will survive kind of way. Obviously some people think they need them still or they wouldn't exist. People have different priorities so isn't it good that the people who want professional wedding photographers can have them and people that don't aren't forced to use them? Obviously you don't think they are necessary, so don't worry--be happy. But let others who do be happy too.

[rachel_harmon]

When I got married last year, I had a photographer shoot my wedding and reception here in Colorado. Nice pictures of the family, etc. They were great. My husband and I traveled back to Illinois for a second reception for all the people who couldn't travel to Colorado. My sister-in-law's mom took pictures with her point and shoot. We didn't get nice family pictures. We didn't get nice candid pictures. I regret it all the time that that part of my wedding wasn't captured so I can look back in 30 years and have good pictures to look at. So... are professionals needed? I guess it depends on what you want.

[john_h.1]

I didn't read the other responses so I don't know where mine falls among them if at all.

 

"A lot of couples would never buy a DSLR kit with external flash and extra lenses for $1000 to cover their first years of marriage, so why should they spend such a sum on covering every relative on their wedding day?"

 

Because its their wedding day. They usually don't buy extravagant flower arrangements, hire caterers with fancy fare or wear tuxedos or surround themselves with sea foam color dress wearing attendants in their first years of marraige either. Its beyond obvious that weddings are special and momentous events. Why would there be any wonder why so many want it memorialized in a competent and even superior manner?

 

"In the old days with film you couldn't expect a friend or relative to spend a large sum on film and processing just like that"

 

Uncle Bob's existed in "the old days". Maybe less so but they were around and often for "cost".

 

"and people got into arguments about this"

 

They still do. Take a look at all the posts on such subjects.

 

"Today there are so many cameras around, if several of your friends are hobbyists, you will get decent shots of all of your guests at your party."

 

Loads of cameras have been at weddings for decades. Hobbsts have been attending weddings for years too. They didn't just exist in the last ten years or anything. Digital images are easier to share and fix.

 

"From looking at pro results, I have noticed that a lot of the family formals where heavily retouched, I guess elder relatives have to be pleased to keep in business."

 

Appeasing relatives does occur with weddings to some extent but couples are seeking formals

 

"There are few spontaneous pro pictures (perhaps because budgets are restricted)."

 

If budgets were restricted, they would be few pro pictures sponateous or not. People pay a wide range of fees for wedding photographers. If they want a wedding shot a certain way, they will hire someone to do that.

 

"Many people are not able to tell the difference between a good photo and a bad one."

 

Huge segments of the photo industry would'nt exist if this were true. If pro shot weddings appeared the same as those shot by whover was invited, no one would hire pros.

 

"When looking at photos the main point they check is that they themselves look ok."

 

I heard somewhere that was the point of portriat photography. To be portrayed in a pleasing manner.

 

"Precisely because they cannot judge photo quality they hire a professional, then they can say they did what they could."

 

Hmm. I'm trying to envision the thought process of someone hiring a photographer... >..Gee, I have no idea what a good photos look like even though I bought those cool posters and flashy covered magazines all those years, so I'll hire this guy so that I can tell the guests that I tried to get good pictures. I wonder if they know what good pictures look like?<<< Right. How hard is it to believe that someone can tell they and their freinds are not as good as a pro so they get a pro because they KNOW it will be better? Plunking down three grand just so they can say "they did what they could". Funny.

 

I agree that it can make sense to have a pro take formal portraits and cover the ceremony. Cutting the cake is a really cheesy photo though and who really needs this moment in the highest imaginable quality?

 

I tend to agree but since they paid $3000.00 for the evening, well, they might as well get the cake thing good too.

 

"If you know an amateur who has good equipment and runs some tests beforehand to ensure nothing goes wrong, I find nothing wrong with having amateur coverage of the entire event."

 

Call Uncle Bob.

 

Having invited this debate, I disagreed with almost everything you said. Despite that I see at least some merit in the conclusion. My own thoughts are that much of the imagery is overposed, chessy and cliche'. But it doesn't matter what we think. If people didn't want wedding photography so much, they wouldn't be paying pros so much either. Its not what is necessary. Its what the market wants. Nice cars aren't needed either but not everyone wants a Yugo. Especially for their wedding.

 

 

[savagesax]

"Call Uncle Bob."

 

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

[kira_greene]

To be perfectly honest, I didn't read all the replies to the OP as thoroughly as I did the OP, but I did skim through them, so I don't think I am repeating anything that has already been said.

 

I think you make a good point: that most people just check to see how they look.

 

However, just because someone cannot explain depth of field, exposure rules, rule of thirds, etc. etc. etc. doesn't mean they don't recognize a good photograph (based on these qualities/rules) - regardless of how they look. Otherwise, why is there so much research and books and whole degrees offered by colleges all over to help people make a living composing pleasing images?

 

Maybe an amateur can recognize a good photograph, but a professional can consistently produce them. There are lots of 'mom's with cameras' who produce great snapshots and few quality photos, guess which ones make the family emails? The well composed ones, even if the person can't explain in tech terms why it is great. (I don't mean to pick on moms, it is just an easy category to use as an example. no offense!)

 

I had a pro at my wedding, and I have an awesome 'cheesy cake shot' that I cherish.

 

I take photos for my family events, and people always say "what a great camera, it takes such great pictures" and we all know that there is more to photography than equipment. And FYI, when my photos are less than stellar, my family is quick to point to the well composed ones and say "wow, I look stupid, but that is a great picture", unless of course they don't look stupid, then they just like the photo.

 

:)

[christopher hartt dallas]

Does the phrase "Pearls before Swine" have any meaning for you? If not, check it out, it's a good basic literacy piece of trivia.

[cariad]

Ok.............it all depends..........I could wash my dishes in a bowl of water, but I prefer a dishwasher,

I could walk instead of driving a car, I prefer a car, so as long as I can afford it I will and want the better things in life..........

I am a photographer and I am getting married shortly and no I won't have uncle Bob take my pictures, I will have a professional photographer do that...........why, because I want the best I can have for my photographic memories, but if that is not important to you........that is ok too.........that is what makes the world go round...........live and let live and be happy!

[kira_greene]

Hey Mr. Hartt!

 

you have an AWESOME website. I have no desire to be a wedding photographer, I was drawn to the

thread since I found it interesting, but your photos were truly inspiring to me. I still don't want to

photograph weddings, but I sure want to photograph people half as good as you!

 

WOW.

[gwyatt]

I just got a message from a bride last week and It Said " I cried I laughed I went through my whole day again. Thank you so much

you made every memory come back to me. Aunt flow with a $800 camera and no talent can not capture the day like a pro can. No

friend or family is going to work there ass off to capture every great moment that happens during there day. Someone who wants

great photos and to be able to make an awesome album needs to hire a pro. No two ways about it.

[wentzu_chang]

I think it all depends on what you want...and what you want from a pro, or anyone who covers you wedding. My point of view from my

own experience...

 

I am a photographer shooting weddings, portraiture, and events. I got married this summer, myself and my sister covered my own

wedding. I was planning to hire a pro at beginning, but, with not enough contact info, and lack of time for planning (we got married in

Europe, therefore, got there 12 days before our wedding day, finding, and meet vendors within 10 days) Well, we end up No make up/hair

artist(they didn't want to work on Sunday, summer time is their vacation time), and no pro photographer/videographer.

 

I handed my camera to my sister (she practiced a day how to use my camera)...then, we were ready to go. I don't know why I was not

worried, or stressed out about this, maybe I was in "high"...super happy going to be married.

 

on the wedding day, of course, I couldn't resist and I was shooting. I was shooting all the time, except ceremony (of course, I am the

bride)...Well, turns out, we totally miss those "must shots" from ceremony---no ring exchange shot, and no kiss shot.

 

I like to shoot, and it is just so nature that I picked up camera, and photograph my families, guests, and all those details. And thinking

back, I don't feel regret about missing shots from ceremony. The whole day just turns out be be the prefect wedding. I make an album

from pictures me and my sister took. If you like, you could see our album at www.wentzu.com/wedding2008.pdf

 

So, here you go, hire a pro, if you will regret there is shots missing...or having your "close" family member be the photographer. I said

here "close" family member!!! Because, if there is something wrong with photographs, or missing any shots, then, you will be careless,

or easier to forget, and forgive ;)

[wedding-photography-denver]

Nope, they're not. Just use what you got.

[john_h.1]

"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.