greg_c.

<p>panasonic g1 w/ super takumar 55 2.0 lens @ f/2 and 1/1300 sec.</p><div></div>

<p>dslr, 34mm (35mm equiv.), f/3.2, 1/15 sec, iso 1600</p><div></div>

<p>dslr 48mm (35mm equiv.) f/4 1/64 sec. iso-2000</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Michael made some good points, please allow me to make a few more. Weddings are serious but they should also be fun, right? Being 'respectful of a pro's responsibilities' and 'making judgements about appropriate conduct', not quite sure what that all means but it doesn't sound like too much fun to me. As a family photographer, I have taken thousands of pictures at more than a few family weddings, sometimes as the main photographer and sometimes not, but always for fun and for free. Luckily, that allows me to eat and drink as much as I want and miss 'important' photos every now and then. So far I have been having a ball and don't think I've gotten in the way yet. I'll continue taking family wedding photos whenever asked, and recently I've been asked a lot, since the proof is in the pudding, as they say. And these nice modern digital cameras make it easy and fun. Cheers! </p>

<p>Maybe its less complicated than that. Look at Civil War tintypes. An honest staring pose every time, if a bit stiff, but what else to expect for that rare and important modern photographic portrait. Jump a hundred years to our great yearly school kid portraits. Not so stiff but just as honest. Fifty years later and we don't need to be stiff anymore. Don't even always want to look at the omnipresent cameras constantly snapping away. That's why maybe the best portraits in our modern times are the ones when the subjects are no longer camera aware. Hooray for modern times! Like Neil opined, maybe don't worry about people staring at the lens or catching them off guard, just make good easy honest pictures without so many complications. </p>

<p>For me, making pictures using a camera with just a standard lens and no flash is easy. I simply use my normal field of vision with the light presented and click the shutter while pointing the lens at something interesting. People at weddings are always doing something interesting so that makes it even easier.<br>

<br />Also helping to simplify things, my finished pictures are completed via additional computer image processing. So the camera shutter click is just the fun first step. The link below is to forty pictures from a friend's wedding using just a canon rebel and sigma 30 1.4 lens. <br>

<br /><a href="http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/11986613_yWvXJ#849790049_HwfEt">http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/11986613_yWvXJ#849790049_HwfEt</a> <br>

<br />I think formal portraits are a different matter since for a lot of people posing for pictures is not so easy. For this type of photography, special lighting and other expert photographic techniques are more essential to guarantee pleasing results. To me, your picture looks like it was posed since I can't imagine the bride spontaneously sitting down at the piano in her wedding dress. Non-posed wedding pictures are more appealing to me and also lend themselves to my fun 'one lens no flash' approach since I am not so interested in the serious work of making successful formal portraits. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm thinking about the word 'technical' as it applies to wedding photography and realize that it is central to this picture critique conversation.<br>

<br />Should wedding photography lean more to artistic or technical merit? I know that both aspects are needed but which most successfully prevails and is the first so dependant on the second?<br>

<br />A search of this thread finds 'technical errors' 'technical aspects' 'technical issues' 'technical job' 'technical image' 'technically not so good' 'technical capture merits' 'technical oversight' and finally 'Brides don't care about the technical'.<br>

<br />And not one mention of art. I think that Brides care about art, however it is achieved, in their wedding pictures.</p>

<p>I think this picture is beautiful and also important since its an example of an authentic picture vs. an artificial picture. The catch-22 is that it wasn't set up to look perfect so that makes it more perfect. Blown highlights, indifferent depth of field, haphazard angle of view; who cares, the picture just works. The bride and groom naturally look great and are likely happy with this 'imperfect snapshot' along with hopefully fifty or so more similar 'imperfect snapshots' if they also capture the joy of their wedding day so well. Very nice picture, thanks for posting it.</p>

<p>I guess I'm one of the numerous amateur 'shooters' who are 'undercutting the market'.<br>

For me, people photography is a lot of fun and the more I do it the better it gets.<br>

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I prefer flawed interesting pictures since I think 'perfect' pictures can look artificial or even boring. Most of my post-production fun involves just cropping pictures to enhance their compositional interest.<br>

Fixing every flaw is not so important to me or my audience, either during or after taking the pictures. <br>

I almost think that perfect, professional, people pictures are going out of fashion.<br>

Maybe that's due to facebook and better simple consumer cameras that are very good at taking pretty good pictures, especially for viewing on-line.<br>

So basically what I'm saying here is that the people picture-taking times are a-changin.<br>

Good luck with your people photography business.</p>

 

<p>If church is where the action is that's where I take my pictures. Since flash is never used during services, I take more pictures not less. If a choir loft is available, I'll be taking even more. I consider the service to be the main course and the reception just icing on the cake.</p>

<p>This post is excellent. Thanks Ellie for asking such a good question and to Will for answering it so brilliantly.<br />I will definitely use your good and thorough 'letter of agreement' pointers before photographing my first wedding for pay, one less thing, right? I say don't be afraid, have fun and keep it simple. Thanks again.</p>

<p>

<p>Greetings fellow photographers. I've been reading this forum lately and think its great. Today I signed on with photonet to respond to this topic since I want to make a point that I haven't seen before.<br>

I am an amateur family photographer who has been successfully photographing weddings for years. While pro wedding photographers are great and should always be respected they are not for everyone. By necessity they can take the wedding participants out of the moment simply by their presence. What I think I mean is that pros are contracted to photograph the wedding day as perfectly as possible and that can be demanding work.<br>

If the bride wants a photo shoot as part of her day, great. I only get requests from those who don't. So far my amateur, non-contractual status hasn't prevented me from presenting thousands of beautiful wedding photographs as gifts to those family members who bypass the pros and request that I photograph them on their wedding day.</p>

</p>