Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: -Tom- on October 24, 2012, 06:01:40 pm
-
After the ad of one wedding studio came up, I decided to check out their work, what kind of photos are they making, selling, and basically how "good" is it.
I was led to believe (by myself, I think) that wedding photography in 2012. is something borderline superpro level, and I've never ever even tried to touch it, and I've said to myself that there are 99,999% chances I won't ever agree on shooting a wedding, simply because I didn't feel up to par with the skills I have...
Turns out...wedding photography is mainly shill service. Basically it boils down to "let's make couple of very funny and quirky shots, few artsy farts (b&w preferably) and lets boost the lights in Lightroom, go for the borderline HDR look and call it a day.
Looking at the Facebook comments on those shots, all I read is "wowwww, amazing, ohh" etc.
So what I've come to realize, wedding photographers are just hustlers. Nothing wrong with that, but I must say I'm somewhat disappointed. Disappointed I never tried to hustle someone out of his $ for mediocre job, and also for holding them to such high standards. I've seen one studio that makes really REALLY epic stuff, their wedding movies are movies, but that's one studio. Others I've seen are just so average...or I'm conceded and think too high of myself. Don't know.
But just wanted to put this out there.
-
You can only sell quality to those who appreciate it. I might have mentioned this before but I had two brides visit me about a year ago. Both were getting married over Christmas, both in the late afternoon, one decided that she'd trust me to capture the candlelit atmosphere of a dark church whilst it turned out the other just wanted her friends to take snaps on their mobile and paste the results on Facepuke; her mother was almost in tears as she left. I was pleased enough with my results and the bride was delighted, no idea about the other one.
Mind you I've not done a wedding since. 87,000 people emigrated from Ireland last year, mostly young and single, which means 30 - 40,000 less weddings in a population of just 4m. Prices have dropped from an average of €2-3,000 4 years ago to €5-600 now as what remains of the trade scrambles for work. There are many people doing it at a loss just to try and build a portfolio or to pretend they are still in business and when you are not making money out of it then you won't have the motivation to do a top job.
-
Tom, Having done weddings I can tell you that not all wedding photographers are "hustlers," but as I've said before, the term "pro" is a term that has to do with economics, not art. A pro in photography is a guy or gal who makes money shooting pictures. The term doesn't say anything about the pro's artistic ability. Also, you have to understand that when you're shooting wedding pictures you have to produce pictures that the bride and the bride's mother will recognize as "wedding pictures." That almost invariably means clichés. If the pro does things that are original he stands a good chance of losing customers.
-
Tom, Having done weddings I can tell you that not all wedding photographers are "hustlers," but as I've said before, the term "pro" is a term that has to do with economics, not art. A pro in photography is a guy or gal who makes money shooting pictures. The term doesn't say anything about the pro's artistic ability. Also, you have to understand that when you're shooting wedding pictures you have to produce pictures that the bride and the bride's mother will recognize as "wedding pictures." That almost invariably means clichés. If the pro does things that are original he stands a good chance of losing customers.
Quite
See these people - www.graphistudio.com (http://www.graphistudio.com) They are the very masters of cliche in that they have a team of 'designers' arranging the album pretty much to a formula which in the long term does no more than reinforce the 'niceness' of stereotypical shots. The loop is closed and you circumnavigate it in ever decreasing circles.
-
Some good read here, as always. I have to say, off topic, this is the most (THE most) insightful forum I've ever been on. I don't know how you guys keep it like this, but you do.
On topic...
the term "pro" is a term that has to do with economics, not art.
I need to remind myself on this all the time, my mind always drifts away to those "he who creates the most art, he be the better pro" la la land.
The loop is closed and you circumnavigate it in ever decreasing circles.
This is so true...and depressing.
-
Hmmmm...really? To me Lula, aesthetically speaking, is a very conventional site-a good source of technical info but precious little else.
-
Hmmmm...really? To me Lula, aesthetically speaking, is a very conventional site-a good source of technical info but precious little else.
Like any forum it should be all about what the individual brings to the party not just what they can take from it.
-
If you think you can do better then the average pro, then go for it. There are plenty of brides and grooms out there. Maybe it turns out you're right.
-
Hmmm.............Justin compared to you it appears I have contributed allot. Regardless, through many discussions I have found nothing but rehashed aesthetic discussions that are stuck in issues from the late 60's photography-and I got enough of those while in photography school then. The one area besides technique that is refreshing is how modern technology like the internet or social networking is impacting photography.
-
Hmmm.............Justin compared to you it appears I have contributed allot. Regardless, through many discussions I have found nothing but rehashed aesthetic discussions that are stuck in issues from the late 60's photography-and I got enough of those while in photography school then. The one area besides technique that is refreshing is how modern technology like the internet or social networking is impacting photography.
Hmmm.............Justin compared to you it appears I have contributed allot
That was not the point I was making.
As for the impact of social networking I fear the biggest effect it has had is the lowering of expectations and the reduction of the viewing experience to little more than an exhausted glimpse of some scene that means nothing, conveys nothing and says nothing to anyone else other than the photographer or those that may happen to appear in it. That's fine by me, it's a free world but give me the consideration and analysis of content and whatever is meant by quality over snap shots any day, and we don't have to go back five decades to appreciate the difference.
-
Terrific topic!
I think good wedding photographers do a fantastic job. Both of my daughters had great work done. Excellent traditional shots and flawless prints and albums. Worth every penny.
Bad wedding photographers I've witnessed as a wedding guest:
Bad #1: Took no, zero, pictures of the wedding party. But plenty of out of focus church pews with shadowy bride and groom. A week later the bride pleaded with any guests who took snapshots for copies. Oh, yes, the videographer at that wedding shot the father of the bride's speech and his dance with the bride with no sound.
Bad #2: Took no flash in outside twilight shots at the reception. No flash inside either. Talk about a muddy soup of artifacts!
Bad #3: Disappeared with the bride and groom before the reception for parts unknown and brought them back 3 HOURS late for the reception.
Worst wedding photography trends:
1. Trashing the bride's dress. In back alleys, lakes, mud baths, etc.
2. Candid shots of the bride and groom the next morning, 5 am, in their wedding bed.
-
Some of the greatest photographers I know shoot weddings...
http://www.parkerjphoto.com/
http://www.cmphotography.com/
http://photography.andrenaphoto.com/
http://www.jerryghionisphotography.com/
http://www.jeffascough.com/
http://www.studioimpressions.com.au/blog/wedding-portfolio-01/
etc. etc etc
-
2. Candid shots of the bride and groom the next morning, 5 am, in their wedding bed.
Ewww....
-
Wedding photographer is a lowly profession by now and it associates with poor artistic taste and standards for most art directors. Many talented pros have to maintain separate web presence for different work, and don't want to even mention that they do wedding at all when soliciting fashion/beauty/commercial work, at least that's prevalent in my circles. On the other hand, most of today's brides and grooms don't really know or care what good photography is all about. Any poor quality facebook cellphone image can make them shock and awe as long as it's instagrammed. Anyone who can buy either a Nikon or Canon kit from Costco or Amazon can claim he/she is a wedding pro. More and more brides don't want to order prints and albums directly from the shooter, because they believe they can obtain the same quality prints/albums at price clubs for much cheaper price. In essence, the traditional wedding photography business model is under attack by the new trend that was started by the digital revolution. Many great world-class wedding pros haven't increased their prices for the past a few years at least that's what I heard in places, such as WPPI. Sure, there are some wedding shooters in my local area, such as Denis Reggie, that still charge $35K or more for a wedding package; but, they are statistically close to zero for the sample population.
-
Tom, Having done weddings I can tell you that not all wedding photographers are "hustlers," but as I've said before, the term "pro" is a term that has to do with economics, not art. A pro in photography is a guy or gal who makes money shooting pictures. The term doesn't say anything about the pro's artistic ability. Also, you have to understand that when you're shooting wedding pictures you have to produce pictures that the bride and the bride's mother will recognize as "wedding pictures." That almost invariably means clichés. If the pro does things that are original he stands a good chance of losing customers.
Is wedding photography similar to making/producing a pop music album?
If it is, then I would claim that successful wedding photographers tends to:
-Find a balance between cliche/the expected, and novel/personal/artsy. If you ever listen to a Britney Spears album you will find typical pop-cliches combined with novel elements (and excellent production skills). This may be why "computer programs generating Mozart-ish music" may produce output instantly recognized as "Mozart-ish", but will never create a piece of music that the great players will practice and perform: the formula-based approach gets you only so far, artistic vision and inspiration is needed.
-know what is "trendy" before their customers do
-knows that their job is to make a good end-product and/or to make their customer shine, not to draw too much attention to themselves
-h
-
A pro in photography is a guy or gal who makes money shooting pictures.
Little correction: pro is guy or gal who's main income from the job (not in photography only, but in other areas too). Doing wedding once in a while and get some money as a side effect does not qualify as pro.
And on the topic: it's happening not only in photography but everywhere. Everything gets cheaper, available to everybody and average quality of things gets lower. Looking at the old building, furniture, cars people often say, wow, why can't we make thing like that now. We can and we do, but it is becoming harder to notice good things.
-
looking at al these wedding pictures linked here i know for sure..
I am NOT romantic...
( for me it is mostly total kitsch)
-
Right, Alexander, I meant to imply that, but I should have been more specific. You're not a pro unless you make your living at it.
And Kers, Me too. It's kitsch all right, but wedding photography is one of those things that simply has to be done, like cleaning toilets or digging ditches.
-
It certainly depends on the area and who you know. Here in Tampa there are probably 500+ that will do it but only a serious core of maybe 40 of us doing great work, as full time wedding pros. Being a 'wedding photographer or dj' are the two easy ways in when people are unemployed or bored new moms. Low equipment costs to fake it.
-
And Kers, Me too. It's kitsch all right, but wedding photography is one of those things that simply has to be done, like cleaning toilets or digging ditches.
As a photographer who makes half his income from weddings, I take exception to that comment! And anyway, don't you just love going into an immaculate clean and fresh-smelling toilet as opposed to the usual type. And as for digging ditches - I think you ought to stop digging right there! :D
Jim
-
Little correction: pro is guy or gal who's main income from the job (not in photography only, but in other areas too). Doing wedding once in a while and get some money as a side effect does not qualify as pro.
And on the topic: it's happening not only in photography but everywhere. Everything gets cheaper, available to everybody and average quality of things gets lower. Looking at the old building, furniture, cars people often say, wow, why can't we make thing like that now. We can and we do, but it is becoming harder to notice good things.
Isn't professionalism as much a matter of attitude as it is degree of income? Plenty of people out there who get paid for jobs that they are not particularly good at or interested in.
-
Isn't professionalism as much a matter of attitude as it is degree of income? Plenty of people out there who get paid for jobs that they are not particularly good at or interested in.
It is always difficult to discuss labels (and seldom constructive).
You seem to assume that professional = "good, interested", and that any definition of professional that does not include "goodness, interestedness" is a bad definition. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I disagree, I see a professional as one who is paid to do a task, as opposed to an amateur ("lover of", "generally considered a person attached to a particular pursuit, study, or science without formal training") who in my mind does not get (significantly) paid for their "work". An amateur may very well be a "better" photographer than a professional photographer, he/she simply does not get paid for doing it. Some of the great artists and minds of history have not been professionals, and some only got recognized after their death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional
A professional is a person who is paid to undertake a specialized set of tasks and to complete them for a fee.
...
The term is also used in sports to differentiate amateur players from those who are paid—hence "professional footballer" and "professional golfer".
-h
-
Plenty of people out there who get paid for jobs that they are not particularly good at or interested in.
Good point, Justin. Pretty much describes most (but not all) wedding photogs.
-
As a photographer who makes half his income from weddings, I take exception to that comment! And anyway, don't you just love going into an immaculate clean and fresh-smelling toilet as opposed to the usual type. And as for digging ditches - I think you ought to stop digging right there! :D
Good point, Jim. Let's drop the cleaning toilets metaphor and substitute pumping septic tanks.
-
After the ad of one wedding studio came up, I decided to check out their work, what kind of photos are they making, selling, and basically how "good" is it.
I was led to believe (by myself, I think) that wedding photography in 2012. is something borderline superpro level, and I've never ever even tried to touch it, and I've said to myself that there are 99,999% chances I won't ever agree on shooting a wedding, simply because I didn't feel up to par with the skills I have...
Turns out...wedding photography is mainly shill service. Basically it boils down to "let's make couple of very funny and quirky shots, few artsy farts (b&w preferably) and lets boost the lights in Lightroom, go for the borderline HDR look and call it a day.
Looking at the Facebook comments on those shots, all I read is "wowwww, amazing, ohh" etc.
So what I've come to realize, wedding photographers are just hustlers. Nothing wrong with that, but I must say I'm somewhat disappointed. Disappointed I never tried to hustle someone out of his $ for mediocre job, and also for holding them to such high standards. I've seen one studio that makes really REALLY epic stuff, their wedding movies are movies, but that's one studio. Others I've seen are just so average...or I'm conceded and think too high of myself. Don't know.
But just wanted to put this out there.
With respect - you don't really know what you are talking about. You have a right to your opinion, and believe me you are right when you say there are a lot of very bad photographers around. But to generalise in that way is an insult to a lot of professional photographers. Almost every photographer out there has had a go at shooting weddings - either as a favour to a friend (which is fine), or because they really want to be a professional photographer and have found that nobody will pay them meaningful amounts to do any other sort of photography. It's often those photographers who are the problem, especially now that the technical barriers to photography have largely been removed.
Couples looking to hire a photographer usually have zero experience of finding such a person, and are lured by false promises and glitzy websites offering low prices to undercut the opposition. I can only speak of the UK, but there seems to be a race to the bottom with prices. And you are quite right about the faint praise on Facebook etc - give a newbie some words of encouragement and they think they are David Bailey!
If you want to jump into professional wedding photography with all the other 'hustlers' - go ahead. If you keep your prices down you will easily part fools with their money - if that gives you satisfaction.
A typical wedding for me involves perhaps 30 hours of work. I may have a plain bride, a wet day, a not-so-glamorous location, and it might be dark and cold (yes, this is England). Yet I am expected to still produce good pictures. My aim is that should a prospective couple come to see me about their wedding, I could show them any wedding I have shot in the last year and be confident that it would represent the current standard of my work - not just my best pictures. That is what is involved in being a professional photographer, forget whether you are full or part-time, or get paid for it or not.
A wedding is a fabulous event to photograph - If you like photographing people. Every week is a different cast, different locations, different weather. Only the unimaginative would ever get bored. If you love meeting and photographing people, and want to get paid for doing it - then wedding photography is a great job!
Oh, and by the way, I don't consider myself a great photographer. But I have photographed around 500 weddings over 15 years, and as I don't advertise they all came through word of mouth, so I must be getting it half right.
Jim
-
A wedding photog whose work I admire is Aleksandras Babicius (http://meninenuotrauka.lt/en/) from Lithuania. Were I getting married, I'd fly him over to shoot it.
The bigger issue; however, is why so many wedding photographers [still] have such wretched, Flash-based websites. Perhaps that should be a [dis]qualifier. Flash-based website? Stuck in the 90s, not going to hire. ;D
Wedding photography isn't the only genre where the comments made in this discussion are accurate though. It's in all areas of photography. There are good and bad commercial photographers. Good and bad 'fine art' photographers. Good and bad photojournalists.
In that area in particular what's 'popular' right now? It seems to be the 'kitsch' type of stuff. Printing EVERYTHING on canvas whether the picture suits canvas or not. Printing everything on metal whether the image suits metal or not. The hyper-processed 'HDR look' is being gobbled up. But none of that necessarily makes it good photography.
It's not just photography either. There are good and bad in everything. Artistic and otherwise.
-
I agree, Bob. There are good wedding photographers, and I suspect there are a lot of really good photographers doing weddings. I have a good friend who's a very good pro photographer. He does weddings and he does them very, very well. But the problem is that in order to make a living at weddings any photographer, as I said earlier, has to produce pictures that are recognized by his customer -- which usually means the bride's mother -- as wedding pictures. That's where things break down. Most brides' mothers have a clear idea of what constitutes a wedding picture, and that's usually a classic cliché. It's not that it's a bad picture; it's just that it's a picture that's been done over and over and over ad nausea. There are exceptions to everything, and this is no exception. Every once in a while I see a fresh, interesting wedding picture, but there's usually a fairly long gap between them.
-
I think the mods should step in at this point and disrupt this outrageous outbreak of peace and harmony between members of this forum for I too find myself in complete agreement with Bob, RSL and Jim. :D
The comment re less than cat walk type brides reminds me of one dull, wet Saturday afternoon in November at a registry office next to a railway line with a bride who was seven months gone and a father who couldn't get up the stairs to witness the daughters ceremony because he relied on an oxygen mask to stay alive (as he helpfully explained between breaths from said mask and drags from his cigarette). The poor girls' greatest wish was that I wouldn't make her "look fat" and the fact that I actually got some shots that she was pleased with remains one of my greatest achievements in my time as a wedding photographer.
-
A rare kumbaya moment. :D
RSL, don't disagree on the preconceived notions of the mother of the bride. But I think there are ways to do something that isn't as cliché, that is a bit different and still keep the mother of the bride happy.
-
I wonder if forums for plumbers are also full of people discussing how retail plumbers have generally become worse and worse, ever since B&Q (or Home Depot) enabled Joe Public to buy "professional" equipment and do their own plumbing?
Or decorators discussing how all the amateurs painting not only their own walls but also the walls of their friends and families are lowering the standards. Not like in the good olden days when it took a week to paint a wall...
-
Sunny, I never said it's become worse. It's always been this way.
-
I wonder if forums for plumbers are also full of people discussing how retail plumbers have generally become worse and worse, ever since B&Q (or Home Depot) enabled Joe Public to buy "professional" equipment and do their own plumbing?
Or decorators discussing how all the amateurs painting not only their own walls but also the walls of their friends and families are lowering the standards. Not like in the good olden days when it took a week to paint a wall...
I think the comparison would be Joe Public buying a bagful of plumbing equipment and setting themselves up as a working plumber with very little or no experience. Nothing wrong with photographing your own wedding, or that of a friend. I didn't say there was. But I do think I could learn to be a good plumber much more quickly than I learned to be a competent photographer. I've nothing against someone using a camera phone to record a wedding if the pictures are good. Equipment has nothing to do with it.
Jim
-
Fair point, Jim.
I think that kind of Joe Public exists, except he calls himself a "handyman" or "man with a van" or "no job is too small" :)
-
As a photographer who shot his first wedding in 1978 ... its a totally new world out there.
I am full digital ... but all manual with a hand meter and a manual flash & only own 2 lenses . I fold my screen down on my Canon >> no chimping in my finder all day .. Can shoot a full- day wedding with 'round 350 images and my selling point > 89% from that selection will be quality. We offer a buy back option of $10 for every image the bride deems unsatisfactory.
For the very cheap minded B&G > we are confident enough to shoot a wedding and hand the card at the end of the day > did it with film when digital was just coming into the market..
-
As a photographer who shot his first wedding in 1978 ... its a totally new world out there.
I am full digital ... but all manual with a hand meter and a manual flash & only own 2 lenses . I fold my screen down on my Canon >> no chimping in my finder all day .. Can shoot a full- day wedding with 'round 350 images and my selling point > 89% from that selection will be quality. We offer a buy back option of $10 for every image the bride deems unsatisfactory.
For the very cheap minded B&G > we are confident enough to shoot a wedding and hand the card at the end of the day > did it with film when digital was just coming into the market..
Frankly, that sounds like a damned good idea: you shoot, get paid and don't have to risk DVT for a load of other people's pictures with which you can't have the slightest emotional connection.
It makes the whole idea of weddings seem sane again. For other people to do them, I mean.
Rob C
-
It was so much easier in the film days -- capture the wedding > drop your film in the mail on Monday and send out your 5X5 proofs to the bride. No computer time or 3000 images to view.
Although at the day of the wedding you did have to carry different backs of film speed & if you were shooting 6X7 >you had to change the film every 10 shots. ;D What if there were more than 10 in the bridal party, coming down the aisle > you had to have another back in your jacket ..anticipate your every shot. Every shot was preset. There were only PROs in the field or amateurs that didn't work very long in this town.
-
After the ad of one wedding studio came up, I decided to check out their work, what kind of photos are they making, selling, and basically how "good" is it.
I was led to believe (by myself, I think) that wedding photography in 2012. is something borderline superpro level, and I've never ever even tried to touch it, and I've said to myself that there are 99,999% chances I won't ever agree on shooting a wedding, simply because I didn't feel up to par with the skills I have...
Turns out...wedding photography is mainly shill service. Basically it boils down to "let's make couple of very funny and quirky shots, few artsy farts (b&w preferably) and lets boost the lights in Lightroom, go for the borderline HDR look and call it a day.
Looking at the Facebook comments on those shots, all I read is "wowwww, amazing, ohh" etc.
So what I've come to realize, wedding photographers are just hustlers. Nothing wrong with that, but I must say I'm somewhat disappointed. Disappointed I never tried to hustle someone out of his $ for mediocre job, and also for holding them to such high standards. I've seen one studio that makes really REALLY epic stuff, their wedding movies are movies, but that's one studio. Others I've seen are just so average...or I'm conceded and think too high of myself. Don't know.
But just wanted to put this out there.
Just what they can offer. You can't call it a hustle if that is what they do and are up front about their work. Ansel Adams was not a street photog. Bresson was not a landscape photog...just what they did best.
I think if they are providing some HDR it is a very nice service if it looks nice and the client likes it.
-
I don't believe, in my market, the "modern" B&G are looking for the old school quality .... Just not as critical as 20+ years ago. Seems to be more volume of the photos they receive and upload lower images to a on-line site. More of a social media share thing > than a quality 10X10 image in a book ....
-
I don't believe, in my market, the "modern" B&G are looking for the old school quality .... Just not as critical as 20+ years ago. Seems to be more volume of the photos they receive and upload lower images to a on-line site. More of a social media share thing > than a quality 10X10 image in a book ....
+1. Generally speaking, the generation of facebook/youtube has no interest in quality. Currently, what they desire to get is just some image buffet in Instagram style on facebook.
-
One of my weddings last year said they had no way to play a DVD ? SO... how do we send the bride her images ?? Upload 50 meg files to a site somewhere ?? Glad weddings have left our weekend world >> most of the local ones ~ were just not profitable any more. My colleague still shoots but, has to travel mostly outside of the area for $10-15k ..
-
+1. Generally speaking, the generation of facebook/youtube has no interest in quality. Currently, what they desire to get is just some image buffet in Instagram style on facebook.
Personal I'm a part of this generation. I think the main problem is that every think that an ordinary photobook by xyz or a printed poster from an online shop is the upper bar of what is possible. When i started make larger prints from my images nobody could understand why I'm spending so much money for a product you can order for 20$ from every print service. Actual rely funny is the moment if you tell that even the price of the photo mount is often more then the price they are willing to spend in one picture.
It will be a long way to get create "sense of quality" in this generation, much longer than before. That's the fortune of every skilled manual work.
best regards from Switzerland
-
i was driving home yesterday... noticed a woman with dslr and bride/groom in the park... she was fumbling with her camera - had them embracing under a walking bridge overhead on a walkway completely cast in shadow - with sunny space behind... and no fill flash to be seen....
might have been friend... but wow if this was a paid photog...