New Photogs at weddings.....A Discussion

[joshua_croft]

<p>I would like to start off with this disclaimer.... I am in no way a pro wedding photographer. I don't claim to have the experience to take on that kind of responsibility. Although I have on occasion done weddings as complete favors on request......no charge for family type stuff (under protest). I specialize in sports, and like to think I have a knack for that, and do make money in that field. Ive thought of delving into the world of wedding photography and have done heavy research on it, finally deciding that I don't have the time or commitment to assist long enough to become at the very least proficient in the art. That being said, this is my RANT. So reader be warned. I just got done looking at the entries in the forum on the from page of this site, titled " BEST WEDDING IMAGE OF 2008". I have to say there is some amazing stuff in there. I really wish that I had that kind of talent, some of you are true photographic genius's. On the other hand, there are some people that submit work that they have done at weddings and I cringe. I applaud their desire to go out and pursue there dream/vision etc, but I cant really justify it in a case where they have a bride and groom and multiple families BIG MOMENT in there hands, almost literally. To get to the point and end my rant....."Do you as pro photographers think that there are way too many unprepared advanced amateurs, taking HUGE risks at the expense of their clients? Sometimes to the tune of 1000+ dollars a wedding? I don't think that we can do much about it, but it really bothers me that someone would take that kind of money for anything less then brilliant....or at least in FOCUS and PROCESSED correctly......".</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>Yes</p>

[jon rennie]

<p>There are tons of sub-par "pros" out there charging just as much or more then other better photographers. All the more reason for the couple to really triple check their choice in deciding their wedding photographer.<br>

As terrible as it is to say, those over priced lower quality photographers make me look better. Those horror stories make good referrals that much more important.<br>

Lets face it. Those that you are speaking about probably know they are not the best, but they think their stuff is good. Bride and groom's just need to be very careful. They see the same images we do from these photographers, there must be some reason they chose them.</p>

[lindamccague]

<p>I agree and hope I'm not one of the ones you're referring to. ;-)</p>

[dawn_kelly]

<p>You are right.</p>

[gpjoell3]

<p>The problem is not totally on the photographer. Part of the blame lies on uneducated B/Gs who are willing to pay $40.00 a plate for 150 guest, pay thousands of dollars on floral arrangements, pay $500.00 on a cake, pay $800.00 for a D.J., and look for the cheapest photographer or friend with a camera to capture every detail of the day. Whether or not the photography is bad, the B/G might not even care. Especially if they did not pay much. To them. they know what they paid and what they are getting. They do not expect perfect.</p>

<p>Believe it or not, there is an abundance of photographers out there that do not know that they are bad. They have not compared themselves to anyone and no one has challenged them. They produce just enough to keep their clients happy. What they see on their screen is just enough. Remember, most folks are using cell phones to capture life. So if someone has a DSLR and put is on Auto, it will be better then a cell phone.</p>

<p>If the photographer/friend is $1000.00 less then the Pro Photographer down the street, the the B/G will except just enought and better then a cell phone to capture their most precious memories. If the photographer get enough paying jobs of clients who are willing to pay for just enough and not overly concerned with the best, then that photographer will start to think that they are a paid Pro. This mentallity is what is shutting down a lot of ligitamate photography studios. This is the sign of the times. My head is not in the clouds, and I have come to grips with the fact that I will lose to photographers that are lower in price and inferior in quality. </p>

<p>I applaude anyone who has the guts to post a photo on this forum for all to critique. I have viewed my photo and believed that it is good enough to post here. I have seen some great photos posted here. I also know that for every great photo that a photographer produces, they will also produce one that will get deleted before the client ever sees it. We are not perfect.</p>

<p>I would not RANT too loud, because Hyundai is making just as any cars if not more then Honda. Most folks believe that Honda are better the Hyundai; however, must folks will pay for what they can afford and except just enough. Given this economic times, I believe more folks will opt for a Hyundai before a Honda and are willing to pay less for a photographer who can deliver just enough.</p>

[allardk]

<p>If someone does not care enough about the quality of photographs to research which photographer has a style and skill they are satisfied with, that's their problem. Or not. Technical quality of photographs is something most people (non-photographers) don't pay attention to, in my experience.<br>

I'm also amazed by how widely spread the quality of the 'best of 2008' pictures is. Some of those I would not be satified with if I'd taken them, and I'm not a professional at all. Others blow me away. There's good and bad for all products and services, so why not for wedding photography. The market mechanism may not work as well for wedding photogs as for cereals, because you don't get married every week. What could be done about it? An 'approved by the national association of wedding photographers' sign?</p>

[Marc453]

<p>I won't rant, nor will I agree or disagree with the above rants. I would say that all photographers start somewhere and get better as they go along. I have been taking photos for more than 30 years and I rarely think I make spectacular photos. Only the people who hire me do. And that's the proof of the pudding. As one lady told me years ago, "We didn't like the photographer or his photos, but we only paid $600 for him." Personally, I go out of my way to please my clients when shooting weddings. In fact, I have turned down the last two weddings because I did not think I could give the brides what they wanted (chemistry between the bride and I, and her expectations vs. her firm price of what she was willing to pay.)<br>

Also, I would add that most plans for the wedding photography rarely developed because of the time involved in getting everything right. I have never been to a wedding that started on time. I have never-ever gotten all of the photos on the bride's list, (not my fault either) and photos just happen. You have to be ready-in the right spot-and everything working.<br>

It is very easy to crititize someone else's work and say I would have..., maybe you would have, then again...</p>

[adamphoto]

I have to agree the spectrum is very wide, but I think many are people just having fun as "guest with camera" or second shooters who are still learning. It's a shame in a way that there isn't a critique thread running in parallel, I'm sure it would be an interesting read. Like Linda I hope my entry is competent enough - I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it was - but I also think there are a good half-dozen stunning images in there that put some of the 3+ years entries to shame and I'm looking forward to seeing the judges' comments on the winning images.

[joshua_croft]

<p>Hey, thanks to all for your responses.....every now and then you just need to let out some frustration, and the forums are good for that if you can do it in a polite manner :) As you could probably tell I already pretty much knew the answer to my own question. But sometimes you just need to tell someone when something’s bothering you! So again thanks. And don't worry if you were entered the contest, 95 percent of the entries were great! And overall I've seen worse in other places, but it’s just been lingering in the back of my mind and one or two images just set me off on my "rant". I know that it’s only a small percentage of you that are putting out a less than professional product, again, I was VERY impressed with most the pictures that were posted for the best of 2008. Again thanks for the comments! I wish you all the best.......</p>

[wte]

<p>Marketing... If you are good at marketing a product, and if the product is good enough to satisfy a client's needs, based on that client's perception, that's all you need for any service business to make a go of it. Inversely, if you can't run a business even the best photographer will fail.<br>

- - -<br>

Part of photography is intangible... even sacred... The client may think that they have hired a great artist and that the blurry pictures are "soft focus," and the dark edged flash pictures with overexposed faces are "intense." It's the marketing that will get this photographer his next gig, not his skill with a camera or in post production. If you take enough images you are bound to have a few good enough for an online gallery or portfolio. People think, "[He/She] must be good if they make a living at it."<br>

- - -<br>

Of course, the person signing the check should also be held to account because they are the enablers.<br>

- - -<br>

Hey, it makes it all interesting, and thanks to the duds, there's always room for another truly good photographer with a good business acumen.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>It's kinda ironic that many of the comments here are on the lines of "some photographers don't know how bad they are" when that same comment could theoretically apply to the commentators if their photos are crtiqued by a photographer who's relatively better than they are :-)</p>

<p>I've been following the blogs/websites of several active photo.net members who do weddings and while I've been totally amazed by some of them, I've also found some of them to be really awful (to my taste). Yet these same folks are often seen participating in threads where they look down on the cheaper/inferior bunch of photographers popping up. Sometimes, you just need to go look in the mirror I guess.</p>

<p>The Hyundai-Honda analogy is quite appropriate for this discussion. Though I'd probably have used Toyota instead of Honda. *grin* Anyway, the point is it should be the B&G who decide if their photographer has delivered to their satisfaction or not - not some random folks in a forum.</p>

[sprouty]

<p>Joshua, the truth of the matter is a difficult thing to assess. </p>

<p>Without addressing the thread in question or speaking about anyone who posts on this forum, I can say the Internet is rife with examples of people who claim to be professional wedding photographers whose work is simply sub-par by my standards. <br>

I have also attended weddings where I watched all manner of atrocities being committed:</p>

<ul>

<li>pop-up, on-camera flash for the whole event</li>

<li>choosing a location where a lovely view of the ocean was behind the couples being photographed, but also where a striped overhead awning was causing a terrible shadow (it looked like everyone was wearing a seat-belt)</li>

<li>Shooting all the formals directly into the setting sun of a lake with the guests in deep shadow with no flash-fill (later I saw the proofs - every image was exposed perfectly for the setting sun with absolutely no effort to pull some good detail out of the shadows)</li>

</ul>

<p>Having said all that I can also say that I've never heard a bride complain about their images. Not even once. Including the three people mentioned above, and I really wonder what to make of that.<br>

Is it proper to then infer that most people simply don't care about quality photography? I'm almost inclined to think it might be.<br>

So my question back to you is why <em>wouldn't</em> some people think they could do better, or heck, at least as well? </p>

<p> </p>

[rayt]

<p>Yep. One of my pet peeves, shown many times over in the images posted, is blown highlights on the brides dress. Some were intentional and fit the image. Others were just nothing more than blown highlights. The bride paid big bucks (got ripped off) for the dress so it is important.</p>

<p>I also despise slanted or tilted pictures. Maybe it is my conservative nature. I attended a nephews wedding and the assistant took almost every image slanted. I don't she understood gravity.</p>

<p>I also do not like "shotgunned" weddings where the photographer, and possibly an assistant, take 2000 or more images. I think that shows a decided lack of skill and they are relying on chance to provide a few good images. This probably goes back to my film days where a wedding was completely photographed in 150 images or less. I now do digital and consider 500 images excessive.</p>

<p>I see images taken in portrait mode where there is a horrifying shadow on the side indicating no bracket. I see images taken in churches with orange lighting in the background indicating a mismatch between the flash and the ambient. I see flat expressions indicating on camera flash.</p>

<p>But hey, if the couple likes the images then all is good. Perhaps they do not know better. Many times they cannot afford better. The final judge is the couple and if they are happy regardless of my disdain of the images, then my opinion ain't worth a cheap Walmart print.</p>

[think27]

<p>Marcus, you say "I would say that all photographers start somewhere and get better as they go along"</p>

<p>Hmm - not all photographers ;-) I hate to say it but some photographers don't get better or at least not much better.</p>

<p>I have to say, honestly.... There are a few "newcomers" in the "up to 3 years experience" thread that have submitted an image that far surpass 'a few' of the "more than 3 years experience" thread. (not saying which ones ;-) I was thinking, when I came up with the idea of two threads, that we might see that.</p>

<p>The less experienced thread is showing some newcomers with emerging talent. Frankly, there are a few shots up there in the less experienced genre that would give the other thread's participants a run for their money ;-) </p>

<p>To be fair, there are a few on that thread who shot a wedding for free and just wanted to put up their favorite shot. Or, some that don't intend to do this for a living but shot a couple of friend's weddings. </p>

<p>I agree that there are some emerging photographers out there that have no business charging as much as they do for their work. My experience is that these people will slowly but surely fade out. And, as has been said, some of the poor brides that had bad experiences will be sure to put the word out there to her friends and family to not skimp in the budget for wedding photography -- which is good for the pros out there.</p>

<p>But DO keep in mind that there is a need and a market for low cost photographers that do a "decent" job of documenting a wedding. Some of these brides will regret the decision not to spend more for a more experienced, more expensive alternative. I know, because I've talked to so many couples/brides who wish they made photography more of a priority years later. Others will be and are very happy to have 'something' vs nothing at all and the photographer still did a better job than the guests snapping with point and shoots.</p>

<p>Times are tough economically right now and even some of the best are struggling. We can't sit around and grumble that the cheaper, newbies are taking work away from the pros. We should up our game and find ways through marketing and fresh approaches to compete in this market. I would suggest , in some cases, taking a hard look at the approaches of 'some' of the newcomers and learning a thing or two. </p>

<p>I don't think the trend for natural, emotional, semi-photojournalistic work is, or will diminish any time soon. Some of the long time pros could really improve their businesses by moving away from the old-school traditional, formal, formula studio style of wedding photography. Keep fresh and inspired rather than falling back on the tried and true. Things change and often the fresh perspective of newcomers can keep us on our toes.</p>

<p>There are some great shots in both threads. I say concentrate on what works rather than spending any energy thinking about the sub-par stuff on either thread.</p>

<p> </p>

[sprouty]

<p><em>"To be fair, there are a few on that thread who shot a wedding for free and just wanted to put up their favorite shot. Or, some that don't intend to do this for a living but shot a couple of friend's weddings."</em></p>

<p>Mary I could understand your point if someone posted a single image from a few they shot at a wedding, after all it's fairly easy for anybody to get one or two keepers. But I'm not sure it's fair to diminish the effort of someone who had the responsibility of shooting the entire wedding, free or not. The responsibility is the same as if they had gotten paid.</p>

<p>The image I posted was just such an example: I shot the bachelor party, pre-wedding friends and family party, the wedding, and the reception. There was no one backing me up and I took it all very seriously.</p>

<p>Here is a slide show, of a few of the images I took. Keep in mind this is certainly not all, as I just wanted to give the bride a glimpse of what to expect.<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/37135917@N00/sets/72157607973253253/show/</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>MOST people, even with the latest and greatest equipment and the always mentioned "passion" for photography, should NOT be professional wedding photographers...in the same sense that MOST people should not be Professional Singers/Performers, etc. Have you watched the American Idol tryouts lately...?<br /> <br /> Sadly, a lot of folks don't know 'when' to say 'when' in terms of photography and they grind on in hopes of one day becoming a successful wedding photographer, deceiving not only their clients but also themselves about the quality and content of their work.<br /> <br /> On the other hand - as Mary mentioned - I've had students whose first shots out of the camera are exceptionally good. I suppose it's like giving a basketball to a kid and immediately recognizing the talent he or she has for it. There are far fewer "naturals" (naturally talented novices) than the camera manufacturers would have us believe, however.<br /> <br /> It would be wonderful if more people would "get it" when they contemplate a career in wedding photography - whether that 'getting it' involves limiting their efforts to relatively harmless bystander shooting, or knowing that they have an skillset, artistic vision and determination to make a career in photography work.</p>

[stephen_kinosh]

<p>I just ran across a reqeust for a wedding photographer that stated.</p>

<p>Send me a few examples ndn teh lowest prive gets the job......<br>

I was half tempted tosend my wife and her D40 for 100.00 and see what they said......</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Stephen, yeah, I wish more clients would "get it" too :-)</p>

[think27]

<p>SP - The operative word here is "some". Of course there are exceptions. ;-)<br>

I'm not diminishing efforts. I'm simply pointing out that before someone is too harsh, to consider that there are quite a few times where someone has come on here with not much more knowledge than that they take good snaps and someone wants them to document their wedding because they can't afford a pro. Standards for those photographers are no where near yours or others that are actually considering doing this for a living... Or someone who has a good number of years under their belt shooting sports or landscape photography who has been asked to do a wedding. All I'm sayin...is I suspect we have a few entries from snapshooters who did a wedding for a friend who did the best they could and the standards of the couple and the shooter were not what many of us would expect of ourselves.</p>

<p>And, the responsibility is awsome. That's why we are here for people that are tasked with shooting a wedding for a friend or relative. </p>

 

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Firstly: Ditto Mary's last sentence.</p>

<p>We who have more experience can help to get someone with less through it. Perhaps with less difficulty than they might otherwise encounter.</p>

<p>Having said that, there are plenty who do it for extra cash, and present themselves falsely. They are the group who make it seem poor quality and apparently take $$$ for something they really don't provide. That's a bit of a shame IMO.</p>

<p> </p>

[sprouty]

<p><em>"I'm simply pointing out that before someone is too harsh..."</em></p>

<p>My apologies, I misinterpreted your point. </p>

<p>And I concur that this forum is a remarkable place full of people that willingly share advice, advice that would take years of experience learn otherwise.</p>

[railphotog]

<p>I did part time (film) weddings for about 25 years. I had to learn by doing and reading what material I could find on the subject (not much at the time). I never saw photos taken by a high priced pro, so I never had anything to compare with what I was doing. One time I did see a sample album somewhere and took a look at the images, and recall how crappy they were. I don't know if he was highly paid but I do doubt it. This sample album was a selling tool for him, I assume it must work some of the time.<br>

I did an acquiantances wedding one time, got a referral from the bride for a friend of hers. Never heard the referral after I showed my samples. Some time later I ran into the original bride, and she made a point to tell me how poorly her friend's photos had been, by a well known pro (the son of a pro, they operated a full time studio, etc.). She said the photographer came into the reception, ordered everyone around, set up the posed photos (cake cutting, etc.) right away and left.<br>

So it seems amateurs and "pros" can offer less than stellar photos too!</p>

<p> </p>

[laronge photographie coutu]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you as pro photographers think that there are way too many unprepared advanced amateurs, taking HUGE risks at the expense of their clients?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aren't the risks really the clients? Buyer beware! This is why professionals have things like portfolios, affiliations, references, legal business registrations, store fronts, contracts, product samples, web sites, take credit cards directly, proper and back-up equipment and plans, etc. <em>(Before you thrash me for my last sentence please reread it and note that I said, "things like," not, "all of these things.")</em></p>

<p>In the end, isn't the final judge of a photographer's (pro or not) quality/service/price the clients? If you see an image with clipped highlights and you know that you could have shot the same image without the clipping and yours would be much better but, the photographer's, who shot the image, client is happy with the image, could you really do better?</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>This is a thorny issue that keeps coming to the fore recently. One big problem with commenting on it is the fact that deciding who is "good" and who is "crappy" is based on opinion. Yes, I concede that generally, most can agree on what is and isn't good, but even "in focus and processed correctly" can be misinterpreted. The recent thread on selective focus is a good example. It is very trendy now to do selective focus on darned near every image. Sometimes it is very effective, other times it makes no sense and looks like a mistake...a mistake that the customer will probably think is a mistake. Same with 'processed correctly'. Some people go crazy on the actions in post. Is this good or bad? By whose standards?</p>

<p>I recall seeing some images of the announcement into the reception of the bridal party, posted by some young photographer who was very proud of the fact that he shot it using deliberate motion blur, which he thought was most cool. Good or bad? By whose standards?</p>

<p>Then there is the fact that this issue almost always polarizes established (usually older) photographers against up and coming (usually younger) photographers. The usual outcome is that the latter group ends up thinking the established photographers are just bitter, old, resentful dinosaurs complaining about the fact that young, engaged couples no longer want to pay their high prices for stuffy, boring photography. They don't think about the fact that if their careers proceed nicely, they will (they hope) be charging nice prices for work that might by characterized by some young up and coming photographer as stuffy and boring.</p>

<p>This issue has always been around in wedding photography. True talent will always be there among beginners. There are some established pros that have made it due more to their sales skills than anything else. There will always be people picking up a camera and charging money because the industry isn't regulated (nor do I want it to be). There will always be clients who go for the cheapest deal, no matter what. There will always be clients who recognize good photography and are willing to pay for it. This issue is just more noticeable now because it is easier to pick up a digital SLR and start charging money, and I"m sure the state of the economy will increase the number of people doing this.</p>