Is this the death of Wedding Photography?

[nishnishant]

<p>Good points William - all of them. I am 100% in agreement with you, but unfortunately the typical client will not think this through this deeply. It's up to the photographer to clearly explain that the 4 hours of shooting is merely the tip of the iceberg. I don't think nearly enough photographers do a good job with that.</p>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p> I am tired however of hearing "professional"photographers whining about the "so called professional photographers" with the $400 DSLR with $200 blah hlah and etc...and complain that they give a bad name to the field of photography. Get real. The only difference between a "professional" wedding photographer and say a "weekend photographer" is that the weekend photographer has another job during the week.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Also, disagree in general to this comment by Tom Adamczyk. There is a difference.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, I have to say I am always amazed at the sample wedding shots on websites I see from what appear to be experienced pro photographers and how many are really boring and technically weak photos. There appear to be a minority of pro photographers that do very good work and then a large bunch that seem to make a living with producing product that indeed some weekend photographers could probably match fairly easily. BUT, the pros have all the right lists of duplicate equipment, proper lighting equipment, etc. to add reliability and professionalism to the equation. It is just too bad that more of these professionals do not have much of an artistic eye or attention to detail.</p>

<p>Ok, there I said it.</p>

[sreegraphy]

<p>Rick,<br>

Wedding photographer in present days buy a DSLR and claim themselves as wedding photographers and who are ill-prepared to do the job... I am just curious to know were all wedding photographers during olden time were well prepared..??? I mean to ask were the result produced by all wedding photographer the same..??? Specialization skill levels will be existent in all areas and in all times. No matter it's Rocket or Medical Science.. Today's technology evolution has not put any limitations that software engineer should only write software programs. As long as you are equipped to adapt the change and if you can produce what your client wants you are set to cross the miles but not the destiny.</p>

[photom]

<p>OK, an edit to my above comment.</p>

<p>About 20% of websites I see show very good to excellent wedding work. 60% show boring work with a lot of minor problems. This is the product that many weekend photographers could easily match with <em>some effort and care. </em> 20% of sites I see are just bad photos throughout. Sounds like some kind of 80/20 rule. I think a lot of part-time photographers look at the lower 80% and say, "I could do work as good or better than that!". In the good old days of film, the fear of screwing up the exposure, exposing the film during loading, all the stuff where you do not have a second chance with film scared this type off. Now they do not have this fear because of instant feedback. AND, a good DSLR kit is right up there with medium format film for smaller shots that go into a picture book album and the color is probably more consistent.</p>

<p>Of course this is just the photographers that I checkout that have websites. It could be that 90% of the photogs that do not have websites are fantastic or I happen to run into lower quality websites (the photos not the websitee itself). Not sure. Maybe I am just too critical but I do not think so.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Tom--you are also assuming your opinion is the standard by which all should be judged.</p>

[sreegraphy]

<p>Tom,<br /> As you said 20% - GOOD 60% Average 20% - Bad Very true... Could be the percentage varies.. Today's 0% never becomes 100% over night. I am posting my following response to Rick</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>"I read about here every day. Some enterprising software developer may soon introduce a violent new computer game called "Wedding Photographer." "</strong> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not trying to introduce a violent new computer game called "WEDDING PHOTGRAPHER" over night and know wedding photography is hard to do. Who ever makes photographs they've a place to slide in the stack and getting ranks within them is based on how well they explore and enhance their skills.<br /> Finally I'd like to emphasize "There's no Death to Wedding Photography" It's the old technology and who don't want adapt to new technology that dies</p>

<p> </p>

[photom]

<p>Nadine said, </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tom--you are also assuming your opinion is the standard by which all should be judged.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nadine, everyone make judgments of other photographers including yourself. That is how we get better. I am really making more of a general observation but of course it is just one persons observation. I have looked at a lot of websites and compared - mostly to learn and get ideas. My point relative to the topic is that in my single person opinion, what is displayed by a large percentage of photographers appears to weekend type photographers to be a level of quality that can be matched with some care and effort to detail. However, sometimes it looks easier than it really is as equipment seems to cooperate better for a person with the experience.</p>

<p>By the way, I enjoy your wedding samples a lot.</p>

<p> </p>

[neilambrose]

<p>I'm interested in your observations, Tom.</p>

<p>Do you have examples of websites you feel should be in the top 20%? It would help explain the benchmark that you're describing.</p>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p> Neil Ambrose <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 12, 2009; 06:49 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I'm interested in your observations, Tom.</p>

 

<p>Do you have examples of websites you feel should be in the top 20%? It would help explain the benchmark that you're describing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Neil, I would be foolish to hold myself out to setting a benchmark and did not intend this. I was communicating an impression, an approximation, relative to the original topic. I think I better end my comments on this here. You have some excellent samples of wedding shots and am sure you have been told so. Thanks for letting us all see your website.</p>

<p>I do look at photographers that have been nominated for national or local awards as a starting point, then I look at random websites of the hundreds of photographers that are registered as professionals in my metro area. Then I look at photographers from blogs like this and others that sound like they know what they are doing.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>That's fair enough, Tom. I suspect you're possibly right to be circumspect, and it's probably wise to avoid comparing specific photographers.</p>

<p>I look at a lot of other photographer sites too. I have a bookmarks collection of several hundred links, each to a photographer (of various genres) whose work is interesting to me. There are around fifty who are wedding photographers, and each of them has a truly excellent vision and product.</p>

<p>For which reason I don't see the imminent demise of wedding photography. There's certainly a lot of rubbish out there, but there's a lot of brilliance too. It just depends where you look.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"That's fair enough, Tom. I suspect you're possibly right to be circumspect, and it's probably wise to avoid comparing specific photographers."</strong></em><br>

Just when I was ready for the bloodbath, too. <br>

Shucks.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Tom--OK, just checking.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Yeah, but Tom R. has no bio or portfolio or website listed to back up a single thing he writes.<br>

Reason enough to doubt everything he says.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Ken--on photo.net, a website or portfolio isn't required to express an opinion. If you want to discount any statement made by a website/portflio-less person, I guess you can... I pay attention to <strong>what</strong> is said. If it makes sense, I accept it, whether I agree with it or not. I think you can tell a lot about whether someone knows what he or she is talking about by listeniing to what is said--much more so than from a website, bio or portfolio, where the images and info are cherry picked.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>Reason enough to doubt everything he says.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom's post is an end-user opinion on wedding photography websites. No portfolio needed.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>But if you're going to criticize the photographic aspects (qualities) of said websites it would help to know one's background. However, everyone has opinions, some much more valid than others. No problem. My little two cents still.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Ken, I can see your point of view. But I still wonder if there's anything to be gained from credentials if we're talking about opinions on websites and their photography?</p>

<p>The way I look at it, potential clients will draw conclusions about photographers and their websites all the time, and usually without any technical experience to draw from. In many ways, non-expert opinions can be the most insightful, since they're often the most representative of the real target audience.</p>

<p> </p>