Iphone Wedding Photography

[parv]

Jerry L & Vail F, Nokia N8 has 12 Mpx camera: http://redskiesatnight.com/tag/n8/

[David_Cavan]

<p>I wonder if the cultural shift is not as much about the equipment as it is about the ready availability of photography 24X7. I have become the family photo archivist, and one of the telling changes is the sheer number of photos over the past decade, and the frequency of opportunities to shoot them. On another reacent thread I recounted how I had the cost of photography explained to me when I was in my teens, back in the 60's, and when I look at the number of photos from those times, and all the way through 90's it's obvious that photography was a special, occasional thing. Today we have a generation that has grown up and is going through their adult lift events for the first time, and they are used to always being able to take photos of anything, anytime. So when I say to them that they should treat photography at a wedding as a once-in-a-lifetime thing it just doesn't resonate. What does resonate is immediacy, flexibility and spontaneity, which is what they have seen photography do for most of their lives. The whole perspective on the meaning of a photo changes when you know that you can take another 100, or 1000 tomorrow for no extra cost. And, as someone above pointed out, perhaps the institution of marriage itself is just less meaningful and therefore doesn't rise above the day-to-day idea of instant photography anyway.</p>

<p>As far as whether this is good or bad in my opinion, it is what it is. I see no value in trying to educate someone on the inherent "rightness" of a quality output, when that has little or no value to them. If good enough is indeed good enough, then the market will adjust to that expectation. Oh, and I did think the photos presented were pretty good, actually, so at least for that presentation not much had been sacrificed.</p>

[raymond_chou]

<p>pretty good looking photos for an iPhone camera. the way I see it if a couple is willing to hire someone with an iPhone to take photos then they were never a quality client to begin with.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Ray, welcome to pnet. If you go back and check the article, there's one short statement that's easy to miss. The client was one of the photographer's weddings.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>It seems again and again that a lot of these debates revolve around people on either sides' differing interpretations of just what it is that a photographer does. I will present my own interpretation, not because I think it is the only "correct" one, but in hopes that it gets the ball rolling and helps us all understand why we think the way that we think.</p>

<p>Photography is unique among all art fields, in that for the last fifty years or so it has been almost the only form of 'art' that is frequently used for strictly non-artistic purposes. Many textbooks are still illustrated with drawings or etched plates, and those that want to spend the money still comission pastel or paint portraits. And then of course there's the argument about whether or not book illustrations really count as art, which I dont want to get into. Other than that though, photography is the only art that sometimes isn't art. Even grafitti meant to mark a gang's territory is never without any artistic value, as the whole purpose of it is to provide a visual narrative in the form of symbolism.</p>

<p>There are four types of wedding photographers. I am not counting "newbs with cameras" in this discussion. There is the traditional photographer, who takes pride in providing clients with the highest-quality images and the highest-quality customer experience. There is the artistic photographer, who is looking to create memorable and unique images for the client. There is the documentary photographer, who wants to record everything that happened that day. And there is the businessman, who wants to do whatever his clients want, so that they will be happy and provide referrals.</p>

<p>Obviously these types overlap sometimes. But every wedding photographer reading this right now knows that when they begin a consultation, they have one of these mindsets. It may change later on, but you start with one of them.</p>

<p>A traditional photographer would never use an iPhone. The images are too low-resolution, the dynamic range is terrible, and so on and so forth. And he is correct, since it looks bad.</p>

<p>An artistic photographer would use an iPhone if he felt it would make his client's images different than other wedding images. His goal is to be unique, and certainly using a camera that no one else uses is one way to do that. He is correct, as it is unique.</p>

<p>A documentary photographer could use an iPhone to capture candid images that are much more natural than if he were using a large, imposing professional camera. If he did it on the sly, subjects might not even know they were being photographed; they might not even know he was the photographer, and they might just think he was some guy sending a text message. He is also correct in using an iPhone, as it lets him document things that other camera might miss.</p>

<p>The businessman just wants to get paid. If the clients want him to use an iPhone, and he has that in writing, he will. And he is correct, as it gets him paid.</p>

<p>So there are plenty of reasons to use an iPhone, and plenty of people to whom it is a correct choice - just as to Cartier-Bresson the Leica was the correct choice, and Adams and Weston were "just shooting rocks" with large format cameras.</p>

<p>The fact is that to be successful in this business, you need to be traditional, artistic, a documentarian, AND a businessman. The only way to succeed otherwise is to be a very likable person in a small town. To say that new, offbeat technology is <em>never</em> a good choice is only being a traditionalist, and eventually this path will lead you to dried-up customer bases regardess of your abilities. To say that new technology is <em>always</em> good is to neglect traditionalism and business acumen, and will eventually lead you to the same result. But to accept weirdo stuff for what it is - and lensbabies, Holgas, and the like fall into this category too - and use it when it provides something that your normal equipment cannot, is the mark of not only a good photographer and artist, but a wise one.</p>

<p>But that is only my take. Your milage may vary, and I encourage you to explain your own rationale.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I am more a traditionalist Zack, and I find your synopsis indeed interesting, but I keep an open mind to things such as the iphone photographers. This is what they did, not what I'm going to do. If I had my way, I would still shoot everything and only on square film. Nothing else really speaks my personality, but it's just not practical anymore.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I hear you Dave. I take at least one roll of 6x6 or a few frames of 4x5 of the bride and groom during the 'portrait session' for every wedding I do. While one can argue that the colour of films is more or less 'correct' than digital, no one can argue that the resolution of the image isn't far superior to any 35mm-sized DSLR - and the images from that sitting are the ones they are most likely print and pass around.</p>

<p>Plus it gives them something different too ... seriously, who does weddings in film anymore? Almost nobody under 50, unless it's some kid just out of photo school using his K1000.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Zack, I think there is always a desire to categorize or list things if for no other reason than to promote clarity of communications.</p>

<p>When we do it, whether we are highly experienced at this type of work or not, we do it from a photographer's perspective using our biases and inclinations. However, it remains an internalized rationalization. </p>

<p>As I mentioned, clients who would pay for their wedding to be photographed (as opposed to artistic experience, or for free), we then enter onto a world of expectations that aren't as clear cut or organized. As ubiquitous as photography is in our society, it still amazes me what people really expect compared to what they think they want when hiring you ... even if you are crystal clear in your one-on-one presentation and representation on a website.</p>

<p>BTW, I am not against alternative forms of tools for shooting weddings at all ... I was blown away by the fellow on the DWF that shot some 8X10 B&Ws at one of his weddings, and one of my mentors in NYC shot a major ad campaign with a P&S. If time would allow, I'd love to fire off some 6X7 B&W film with my RZ, and may shoot some stuff with an iPhone when I get my new one with an 8 meg camera. </p>

<p> </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Marc, I don't think that an internalized rationalization needs to be silent or unexpressed. Saying the words out loud, and understanding why you believe them, is not the same as becoming overly logical and detatched. Much in the way that a psychoanalyst might ask you, "And what do <em>you</em> think that means?", or an art professor might make you write an artist's statement for something as casual as a monthy critique, putting your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs into words is - to me at least - necessary to the development of any artist.</p>

<p>If, to take the argument counter to my own, the only reason that you can come up with for using an iPhone at a wedding is, "Because it's high-tech and cool," then you probably shouldn't be using one. Similarly, if your reason for using an 8x10 camera is that it you look good when you pull it out (as opposed to the quality, or the customer experience), that's another good reason to scrap it. </p>

<p>Granted, this is ivory tower mumbo-jumbo, but I've found that in my own work, explaining my projects over and over to friends, models, professors, and gallery owners - and often explaining them <em>differently</em> as the projects developed and I really honed in on them - helped me to understand what I was doing, why I was doing it, and what I needed to do next to further the project. If I had relied only on my 'internal rationalization' as you put it, then the only way I could be successful would be if my artistic aesthetic were so uniform that it held the work together. And that would be boring, because then you'd have 40 similar photos :)</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Zack, I think you misunderstood my post. By internal rationalizations as photographers, I meant as a whole, not individually. We as a body try to catagorize what we do, and I think we do a pretty good job at communicating that to one another.</p>

<p>Where the train falls off the track is when dealing with the public who, while exposed to a lot of imagery that has formed their tastes, is less familiar with any categorizations we use for communication, guides, or as ways of self-development.</p>

<p>I'm speaking to the practical aspects of communicating what we do to the public who is specifically searching for a wedding photographer, <em>since this <strong>is</strong> the Wedding Photography Forum</em>. For the most part, they are not of the photographic community, aren't Art Directors or visual artists, and this foray into photo purchase may be the only time in their lives they will do such a thing (except maybe portraits of their kids and family later).</p>

<p>Yes, there are more sophisticated clients that grasp the style of work they are selecting, however most people think that because we are professionals, we can and will do anything photographic. I'm sure most of us have had a client send us a photo of a Vera Wang ad, or some exotic, once in a lifetime wedding shot as examples of what they'd like ... LOL. </p>

<p>I am primarily hired to shoot candidly, decisive moment stuff and all that. Some clients have been enthusiastically adamant that it all be journalistic and mostly B&W if not ALL B&W ... like my B&W street photography. Then two weeks before the wedding I get the whipped-puppy consolatory e-mail where the Mom's have become involved ... guess what happens then.</p>

<p>Or, I'm going along doing my artistic thing, and a family member comes up and says they want to do a massive family group shot that no one discussed before hand ... and the client begs me to do it for the sake of peace and family love. What then? </p>

<p>This stuff happens all the time no matter how we may be clear with our communications before hand. We could refuse on principle, throw our scarf over our shoulder and stomp off in artistic disgust, or just do it, so we can get back to doing our main thing.</p>

<p>As to a iPhone or a 8X10 ... whatever. If you are a good photographer you can do candid work and the bigger stuff with the average DSLR, and suffer none of the disadvantages of an iPhone or 8X10 in the unpredictable world of wedding photography. </p>

<p> </p>

[mike_tn]

<p>I read some of the posts above, not all. I skimmed the OP link article. Artistic tastes of others sometimes get on my nerves too. I think that is the topic here. I have had two cameras as a photo hobbiest. I shot and photoshopped several years on both, the first was a Kodak Z740 point-n-shoot and the other one I still use is a Nikon D40 with 2 kit lenses covering 18-55 and 55 to 200 and an occassionally used F1.8 35mm. From these I've posted 3,600 images on flickr since 2006. In my mind the Kodak point n shoot rots in comparison. In my mind any preference for those Kodak images over the Nikon DSLR shots are like the iPhone-camera-love mentality. I look back on my old Kodak pics and think "UGH!" nasty. However, it seems just as many if not more of hits from viewers go to my old Kodak shots. Many of those look poorly exposed to me. Also the Kodak shots are much more noisy and I had to process the heck out of them to make them satisfactory in my mind, to the point where they look "artsy" though that was not my original intention. Some I do like, when lighting conditions were right. People tend to go to choose better composed point-n-shoot images on my photo stream but the colors or exposure or noise sometimes look ~BLEHH~ bad in my eyes. You can't zoom in much without cringing. The iPhone is like that. You are stuck with those limits on a sensor that size. People on Facebook seem to like it. I have female friends who don't seem to care how poor the quality is as long as it jars a memory. They like the conversation it stirs. It reminds me of birders who only want an ID on a bird, they do not care if it looks good. These people are not real image enthusiasts. iPhone camera devotees, if that's all they use, they are not real image enthusiasts, they just want a conversation on Facebook.</p>