Is our advice responsible?

[shawn_mertz]

<p>How about we shoot for something between rah rah and no.<br>

Like You have much to learn really really fast.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Marc Williams +1</p>

[Bill C]

<p>Hi, I don't think it is the job of photo.net members to police the actions of others. In the case of a wedding, I think it behooves the photographer to be honest with the couple as to their level of skill and capabilities, then the decision is up to them. If what they are doing doesn't sit well with you, you might want to point out your concerns or objections then let it go. Otherwise, I suggest to simply answer the questions, if you are so inclined.</p>

<p>It might seem like a good idea to guide people, giving only the information you want them to have, but in the end this is based strictly on your own ideas of what photography, or its quality, should be. In my experience, this largely depends on your own background.</p>

<p>I used to think I knew a lot about photography. Then I would meet someone who is way beyond me in some way. So I learn more about that. Now I REALLY know a lot. Then I find that something I "knew" turns out to be wrong. (If I had studied it closely I would have known it didn't make sense, but I sort of went along with the common wisdom.) So I go back and re-learn certain "fundamentals," and now I really, really know a lot. So if I want to dictate to people what constitutes good quality, and how deep their knowledge has to be, what particular stage of "knowledge" should be locked in? (Remember, I don't even know how limited I am until another stage of learning opens up.)</p>

<p>Imagine if the sixth-graders dictated eductational standards. They talk about the dumb third-graders, who don't know how dumb they are. But the eigth and ninth-graders can see how limited the sixth-graders are.</p>

<p>Anyway, my point is, give 'em a break. If they want to learn something, help 'em out. If you're so inclined. If you think they're entering dangerous waters, let 'em know. Try to keep the ego in check, 'cuz you probably don't know where you really are on the curve.</p>

<p>Maybe I should post a bio here, but it sort of runs against my grain. But I'm sure I could still get well-exposed, sharp photos of a first dance using a Rolleiflex and manual flash in light so dim the best digital cameras can't focus without an assist beam.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Let's put it this way ... of all the newbies shooting their first wedding that came here for help in the past 3 or 4 years, I do not recall many recanting their decision when told the perils they face. I DO recall some ill will being created due to the manner they were told of their inadequacies.</p>

<p><strong>"Is our advice responsible?" </strong>is a good question, but perhaps not for its original intent. I do not think it is our responsibility to "just say NO!". It simply isn't productive to crush the confidence of a first timer ... especially since they'll probably do the wedding anyway.</p>

<p>If someone doesn't reveal that they are using a sub-par P&S camera until later in the thread, all we can do is respond to that added info then ... we aren't mind readers.</p>

<p><strong>The issue is simple:</strong> we rankle at the thought of some newbie learning on the job at the risk of making mistakes and ruining some poor Bride's wedding dreams ... all while diminishing the reputation of professional wedding photography as a whole. </p>

<p>Frankly, most of this is driven by clients unable or unwilling to pay the going rate for professional "consistency". They decide based on "Knowing what they like" ... which actually means "They like what they know" ... which isn't much. Our industry hasn't done a very good job of educating them either. Plus, as I mentioned, the<em> cell phone generation</em> has a different set of standards than many more polished wedding professionals ... especially in the lower to mid priced categories.</p>

<p>We aren't going to change what is happening to photography. That ship sailed long ago. Adapt or die. I saw the handwriting on the wall regarding all candid wedding photography when so many people at weddings were shooting candids with pretty good cameras. I juiced up my lighting skills and strobe gear to do both formal and spontaneous work to the degree that even uneducated clients could see the difference ... and I tell they why they like what they are seeing.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p> no mention of the dangers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no danger in the true sense of the word.</p>

[davyherben]

<p>Warning: long post ahead :/</p>

<p>Hi, I though I'd post my experience, coming from the 'other side' of this story. I've been 'doing' photography for 6 or 7 years now, but not very actively. I have fairly decent gear (Canon 60d, nice set of lenses), not because I consider myself good enough to get the most out of it, but because I don't like to be limited by my equipment. I've been taking my camera to social events like birthday parties, and parents have had some of my pictures of their kids printed and framed. Nothing more fancy than that.</p>

<p>Last year, a colleague of mine, who knew I had a nice camera and had seen some shots I took at the company party, asked me to shoot his wedding. I didn't feel up to that challenge and politely declined. A few weeks later, I found out that they had decided not to hire a wedding photographer, but rather have the father of the bride (entry level dslr with kit lens, no experience, divorced from mother of the bride) shoot some pictures. I told him that in that case, I was willing to give it my best shot, being very clear that I'd never done this before and that I could well fail.</p>

<p>I spent weeks reading all books I could find on wedding photography, portraits and lighting. I bought a good flash, a reflector, tons of batteries and memory cards. I borrowed another colleague's 70-200 zoom and bought a monopod for it. I rented an identical 60d backup and synced time and settings.</p>

<p>I asked the bride for pictures and names of the important guests. We made a list of required group photos, went over preferred picture style. I went through the day planning with her and slotted in time for the pictures.</p>

<p>I spent my lunch breaks taking test pictures at the location of the formals session (the park around the castle where we worked). I took the couple for a test shoot there. It took too long and was too unstructured, some locations didn't quite work out, and I found posing them difficult. So I redid my homework. I practiced posing in front of the mirror with my wife, went through professional wedding photographers' websites for ideas. I made a list of which pictures to take where, and in what order. </p>

<p>I checked out the church, checked in with the priest, and asked another colleague to take pictures from the balcony above the entrance. I bought a wide-angle lens because space in front of the church was very cramped. I went with the couple to see the venue. </p>

<p>On the wedding day, I took my wife as an assistant. We took a clear plastic sheet, makeup, insect repellent, talcum powder, stain remover, band-aids, safety pins, duct tape and some non-greasy sunscreen. My wife laughed about it. We used all of it.</p>

<p>We were there for the entire day, from the makeup artist in the morning to the cleanup of the venue at 3am. We knew the schedule, and we became the de facto wedding planners that day. We were prepared enough to fix small problems, which helped the family relax. </p>

<p>The pictures were fine. There were some stupid mistakes, like having a traffic sign and power line in the background of the group photos, which I had to remove in post. I struggled with focusing during the first dance, because I had not practiced using the flash IR focus enough, and I underexposed a bit, requiring some post-processing to make them ok. </p>

<p>I think I did well. The bride and groom were very happy. I am proud of my pictures and think they would hold up against those of the local pro. The difference is that it took me weeks to prepare, and a few weeks of post-processing, to deliver professional quality for one single wedding. A real pro would soon be out of business like that.</p>

<p>I never asked for help here on the forum. I didn't have anything specific to ask. There are a lot of 'first wedding, help!' posts on here. I read them all. I was prepared because of all the valuable information that you put out here. It's long overdue, but THANK YOU for that. You haven't made me a professional wedding photographer, but you've allowed me to act like one :)</p>

<p>All the warnings on here were enough to make me decline the request initially. That's because most of the warnings contain a lot of information about why exactly you should not do it. 'Just don't do it' would not have been as powerful. The warnings also gave me enough information to decide that it would, in this case, be worth the shot.</p>

<p>A pro would quite possibly have done a better job. The couple couldn't afford a pro, so what they got was a lot better than nothing. I didn't charge them, I considered it my wedding present to them. If I ever get another request, I'll decline again, though :)</p>

 

[dave_wilson1]

(re my earlier point, nothing to yours Davy, we posted together) The first thing I do before I decide to give any response to a new name, is see when they joined and if they participated in

any other discussion to see if they're trolling. Not sure what happened with This Really Happened, but that thread went

quickly caustic. So you have a new member with a first post who never returns, then another new member who already

made wise remarks on a few threads, possibly trolling, and regular contributers wasting their time being questioned, confronted or

aggravated. Back to my point of a shorter concise answer and feel things out, get more information before writing a whole photography course. JMO

[Bill C]

<p>Davy, glad yours went so well. I once read a saying, to the effect, "Don't you wish that when you are old and retired, you could turn around and sell all of your experience for what you had to pay for it?" I thought that was hilarious, as I've "paid" a lot for my own. And I guess you can appreciate it too.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Good observations and advice Dave.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>My experience is a bit like what Davy described.... except I got sucked into it 3 times (several years ago, all three non-paid). I can wholeheartedly agree to what he wrote, and a lot of the advice I needed, I found here in the forum. I've learnt a lot those days too - especially that I do not want to become a wedding photographer :-)</p>

<p>There is one thing, though, that is maybe a often overlooked on this forum, in my view. Ask where somebody lives. I've come to understand that wedding photos are a big and important thing in the US; likewise in Italy where I live. People seem to expect no less than posed formal shots, substantial coverage of the day, and do not mind that the assistant holding the flash is standing alongside the priest all the time.<br /> In the Netherlands (where I've done the weddings), this wouldn't fly. Most people want good pictures of the day to remember, but there'll probably be a single photographer working very hard to stay out of the way. As unintrusive as possible - you really will not find them using a tripod or lights on stands. Formals are very often dismissed in favour of actually celebrating with the guests. Access to the bride dressing - no, not going to happen.<br /> And in other cultures, things are again a whole lot different. And frankly, each couple (in whatever country) is different in this respects. Not every person wants 2 photographers around, or to pose for formals. I most certainly have zero skills to make people pose, but this was the least of my problem in those 3 days of shooting. It's worth considering - doing what I did in the Netherlands as a single photographer covering a wedding beginning to end with too little experience, will be less likely to cause major heartaches for the bride when the photos relentlessly show that I wasn't (and still am not) a pro. You would have told me not to do it - but in the cultural context, given the expectations, it was kind of OK.</p>

<p>Another thing... saying "no, don't do it"... at some point in time, you need to go out and do it. All of you have done a very first wedding. Should you deny others their first flight? Those who can, will fly, those who can't will have some explaining to do to an angry couple of newly weds. I think what this forum usually does, is right: warn about common mistakes, explain what it takes, warn about specific problems if the question indicates such... and next, it's up to whoever asked to decide to carry on, or not.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I can't help thinking about all those old heirloom photographs after the divorce.</p>

<p>Sorry.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Not sure what happened with <strong>This Really Happened</strong>, but that thread went quickly caustic. So you have a new member with a first post who never returns, then another new member who already made wise remarks on a few threads, possibly trolling, and regular contributers wasting their time being questioned, confronted or aggravated. . . ."</p>

</blockquote>

 

<ul>

<li>The "This Really Happened" thread and also many other threads across many forums, have been edited.</li>

<li>Also a User's Account has been removed. </li>

<li>The Author (Ken Carver) of the Original Post in "This Really Happened" Wedding Thread has been so advised and also thanked, for sharing his valuable experience. </li>

</ul>

<p>WW</p>

[paul_mckinley3]

<p>To someone that does more reading on here than posting i think all your advice is responsible and appreciated. I can understand the OP from a point where you get someone that can't even focus there camera or know the basic function of a camera is suddenly wanting help on a wedding there charging for. Those posts can be frustrating and repetitive but there are people out there learning from them as well.</p>