Vogue claims you don't need a pro wedding photographer

LeDave · 01-11-2016, 06:28 PM

https://fstoppers.com/originals/vogue-magazine-claims-you-dont-need-professi...grapher-108157

Quote:

Here's what Vogue had to say with regards to hiring a professional wedding photographer:

It made sense back in the olden days, pre-Facebook albums and Instagram hashtags, when the whole world didn’t have phones with cameras on them. Having the actual leather-bound album on your coffee table seemed like the only evidence that the whole thing actually took place. If social media is not your thing, why not scatter some disposable cameras around the party and let your drunken guests go to town? You’ll end up with hilarious and candid pictures without the pressure of 'likes.'

There's more to it, read the website linked.

**robgski** · 01-11-2016, 06:38 PM - **1 Like**

I don't read Popular Photography for my fashion tips, I probably won't look to Vogue for photography guidance.

If someone can't afford a pro, this might be a good idea. Better yet, have the disposables, and the pro. With the pro, you get the photos you want to show your kids, with the disposables, you get the photos you can threaten to show to your friends' kids.

JibbaJab · 01-11-2016, 06:57 PM

I guess this makes sense if you eloped and had your reception at an Arby's, but if you've spent $20,000 and almost a year of your life planning your wedding, you're going to ignore this article.

My reception is bad so I'm having trouble looking up the original Vogue article, but what's with the idea of doing away with rings?

---------- Post added 01-11-16 at 06:39 PM ----------

Never mind, I just read the Vogue article. It's clearly fluff written by a boho stylist who's trying to generate buzz for her "anti-wedding" wedding boutique. Her wedding gowns retail up to $11k.

**Digitalis** · 01-11-2016, 07:42 PM - **2 Likes**

At long last, Wedding photography is dead. The slaves will at last be free!

**Kerrowdown** · 01-12-2016, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

you don't need a pro wedding photographer

Well that's a few folk out of job then...

Floggin Rodger · 01-12-2016, 09:29 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by JibbaJab

I guess this makes sense if you eloped and had your reception at an Arby's, but if you've spent $20,000 and almost a year of your life planning your wedding, you're going to ignore this article.

[/COLOR] I just read the Vogue article. It's clearly fluff written by a boho stylist who's trying to generate buzz for her "anti-wedding" wedding boutique. Her wedding gowns retail up to $11k.

Suggest an article titled" You Don't Need An Expensive Wedding Boutique , A Good Photoagrapher Can Make You Stunning In A Hand Me Down"

**robgski** · 01-13-2016, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Floggin Rodger

Suggest an article titled" You Don't Need An Expensive Wedding Boutique , A Good Photoagrapher Can Make You Stunning In A Hand Me Down"

Exactly!

**Rondec** · 01-13-2016, 04:21 AM

I guess the question is whether most brides want to have a few photos showing themselves in the best possible light or just a bunch of snapshots. You can get married on a budget and for some people photos are truly unimportant, but if they are important to you, it certainly isn't a part of the experience that I would skimp on.

Zafar Iqbal · 01-13-2016, 05:38 AM

Vogue claims lots of things in that article - I'm surprised they didn't write getting married is overrated too.

**Kerrowdown** · 01-13-2016, 05:07 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal

I'm surprised they didn't write getting married is overrated too

That depends who your partner is...

Don't tell her I said so.

Murfy · 01-13-2016, 06:06 PM - **1 Like**

"why not scatter some disposable cameras around the party and let your drunken guests go to town? You’ll end up with hilarious and candid pictures"

I do know people who did this, it was big for a while like 10 or so years ago, and there was a reason it stopped. It never ended up like the brides thought it would. Lots of naked pictures, bathroom pics, feet pictures, blurry pictures and table pictures. After the brides pays for all the development, they tended to get a little peeved. Well, hey, I guess that is pretty hilarious

DanGleabols · 03-18-2016, 05:58 AM

Can't be bothered reading the article!

I'm not professional, but I did try and fill the role (at a very cheap price!)

The first wedding I got volunteered by my wife to do her brothers wedding. They didn't have much money and aren't photo people; I explained I was in no way the quality of a professional. They said they didn't mind and they were expecting everybody else to take loads of pictures any ways. Guess what? They were happy with my pictures, but hardly anybody else bothered to take any! They'd have had next to nobody if it wasn't me.

The second wedding was my brothers, again no money. A similar philosophy to the first wedding. To be fair, more people did take pictures; but a wedding album full of selfies isn't what brides generally want. There were some nice pictures of the couple walking through confetti appearing on facebook after the wedding... but who organised the shot? Yup, me. There's far more to the pro photographers job at a wedding than just turn up and take pictures. The majority of the work is in the "other stuff" (mainly managing the clients without taking over their day!).

normhead · 03-18-2016, 06:07 AM - **1 Like**

Is their a complimentary article "Wedding photographer says "don't bother reading Vogue." " I want to see the full debate, not one side of a stupid argument. Or how about a promise from Vogue, "If you don't use a wedding photographer and you aren't happy with the results, we'll pay for another wedding and the photographer to make sure you get the images you wanted." But then, that would actually be taking some responsibility for their idiocy.

Or how about "Help pay for your wedding photographer, cancel your subscription to Vogue." That one's never going to make the magazine cover.

I should write an article "Anyone who manages their life with advice from Vogue probably needs institutional care. " That would be my take.

**sholtzma** · 03-18-2016, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Is their a complimentary article "Wedding photographer says "don't bother reading Vogue." " I want to see the full debate, not one side of a stupid argument. Or how about a promise from Vogue, "If you don't use a wedding photographer and you aren't happy with the results, we'll pay for another wedding and the photographer to make sure you get the images you wanted." But then, that would actually be taking some responsibility for their idiocy.

Or how about "Help pay for your wedding photographer, cancel your subscription to Vogue." That one's never going to make the magazine cover.

I should write an article "Anyone who manages their life with advice from Vogue probably needs institutional care. " That would be my take.

Indeed. Perhaps we should send (to Vogue) a link to this thread. Are online comments to Vogue possible?

noelpolar · 03-18-2016, 02:49 PM

This is probally true for your first marrage..... everybody wants to forget their first marrage....right?

01-11-2016, 06:28 PM	#1
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Vogue claims you don't need a pro wedding photographer https://fstoppers.com/originals/vogue-magazine-claims-you-dont-need-professi...grapher-108157 Quote: Here's what Vogue had to say with regards to hiring a professional wedding photographer: It made sense back in the olden days, pre-Facebook albums and Instagram hashtags, when the whole world didn’t have phones with cameras on them. Having the actual leather-bound album on your coffee table seemed like the only evidence that the whole thing actually took place. If social media is not your thing, why not scatter some disposable cameras around the party and let your drunken guests go to town? You’ll end up with hilarious and candid pictures without the pressure of 'likes.' There's more to it, read the website linked.

03-18-2016, 06:07 AM - 1 Like	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Is their a complimentary article "Wedding photographer says "don't bother reading Vogue." " I want to see the full debate, not one side of a stupid argument. Or how about a promise from Vogue, "If you don't use a wedding photographer and you aren't happy with the results, we'll pay for another wedding and the photographer to make sure you get the images you wanted." But then, that would actually be taking some responsibility for their idiocy. Or how about "Help pay for your wedding photographer, cancel your subscription to Vogue." That one's never going to make the magazine cover. I should write an article "Anyone who manages their life with advice from Vogue probably needs institutional care. " That would be my take. Last edited by normhead; 03-18-2016 at 06:14 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
11 Reasons why you DON'T need a new camera!	newmikey	General Talk	19	08-22-2013 11:32 AM
11 Reasons why you DON'T need a new camera	Reliant K1000	Photographic Industry and Professionals	22	08-17-2013 03:22 AM
why don't you like the 50-135mm lens for wedding photography?	lisa.ireland	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	10-13-2009 02:42 PM
How did you become a pro / semi-pro photographer?	Light_Horseman	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	09-26-2009 08:29 PM
Finally, you don't have to be a pro to try out Pentax's lenses!	jshurak	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	82	05-02-2008 02:17 PM

01-11-2016, 06:38 PM - 1 Like	#2
robgski Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,798	I don't read Popular Photography for my fashion tips, I probably won't look to Vogue for photography guidance. If someone can't afford a pro, this might be a good idea. Better yet, have the disposables, and the pro. With the pro, you get the photos you want to show your kids, with the disposables, you get the photos you can threaten to show to your friends' kids.

01-11-2016, 06:57 PM	#3
JibbaJab Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Southern California Posts: 362	I guess this makes sense if you eloped and had your reception at an Arby's, but if you've spent $20,000 and almost a year of your life planning your wedding, you're going to ignore this article. My reception is bad so I'm having trouble looking up the original Vogue article, but what's with the idea of doing away with rings? ---------- Post added 01-11-16 at 06:39 PM ---------- Never mind, I just read the Vogue article. It's clearly fluff written by a boho stylist who's trying to generate buzz for her "anti-wedding" wedding boutique. Her wedding gowns retail up to $11k.

01-11-2016, 07:42 PM - 2 Likes	#4
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	At long last, Wedding photography is dead. The slaves will at last be free!

01-12-2016, 01:40 PM	#5
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,819	Originally posted by LeDave you don't need a pro wedding photographer Well that's a few folk out of job then...

01-12-2016, 09:29 PM - 3 Likes	#6
Floggin Rodger Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Eastern NC Posts: 132	Originally posted by JibbaJab I guess this makes sense if you eloped and had your reception at an Arby's, but if you've spent $20,000 and almost a year of your life planning your wedding, you're going to ignore this article. [/COLOR] I just read the Vogue article. It's clearly fluff written by a boho stylist who's trying to generate buzz for her "anti-wedding" wedding boutique. Her wedding gowns retail up to $11k. Suggest an article titled" You Don't Need An Expensive Wedding Boutique , A Good Photoagrapher Can Make You Stunning In A Hand Me Down"

01-13-2016, 03:35 AM	#7
robgski Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,798	Originally posted by Floggin Rodger Suggest an article titled" You Don't Need An Expensive Wedding Boutique , A Good Photoagrapher Can Make You Stunning In A Hand Me Down" Exactly!

01-13-2016, 04:21 AM	#8
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I guess the question is whether most brides want to have a few photos showing themselves in the best possible light or just a bunch of snapshots. You can get married on a budget and for some people photos are truly unimportant, but if they are important to you, it certainly isn't a part of the experience that I would skimp on.

01-13-2016, 05:38 AM	#9
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229	Vogue claims lots of things in that article - I'm surprised they didn't write getting married is overrated too.

01-13-2016, 05:07 PM - 1 Like	#10
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,819	Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal I'm surprised they didn't write getting married is overrated too That depends who your partner is... Don't tell her I said so.

01-13-2016, 06:06 PM - 1 Like	#11
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	"why not scatter some disposable cameras around the party and let your drunken guests go to town? You’ll end up with hilarious and candid pictures" I do know people who did this, it was big for a while like 10 or so years ago, and there was a reason it stopped. It never ended up like the brides thought it would. Lots of naked pictures, bathroom pics, feet pictures, blurry pictures and table pictures. After the brides pays for all the development, they tended to get a little peeved. Well, hey, I guess that is pretty hilarious

03-18-2016, 05:58 AM	#12
DanGleabols Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Halifax, UK Posts: 120	Can't be bothered reading the article! I'm not professional, but I did try and fill the role (at a very cheap price!) The first wedding I got volunteered by my wife to do her brothers wedding. They didn't have much money and aren't photo people; I explained I was in no way the quality of a professional. They said they didn't mind and they were expecting everybody else to take loads of pictures any ways. Guess what? They were happy with my pictures, but hardly anybody else bothered to take any! They'd have had next to nobody if it wasn't me. The second wedding was my brothers, again no money. A similar philosophy to the first wedding. To be fair, more people did take pictures; but a wedding album full of selfies isn't what brides generally want. There were some nice pictures of the couple walking through confetti appearing on facebook after the wedding... but who organised the shot? Yup, me. There's far more to the pro photographers job at a wedding than just turn up and take pictures. The majority of the work is in the "other stuff" (mainly managing the clients without taking over their day!).

03-18-2016, 02:45 PM	#14
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	Originally posted by normhead Is their a complimentary article "Wedding photographer says "don't bother reading Vogue." " I want to see the full debate, not one side of a stupid argument. Or how about a promise from Vogue, "If you don't use a wedding photographer and you aren't happy with the results, we'll pay for another wedding and the photographer to make sure you get the images you wanted." But then, that would actually be taking some responsibility for their idiocy. Or how about "Help pay for your wedding photographer, cancel your subscription to Vogue." That one's never going to make the magazine cover. I should write an article "Anyone who manages their life with advice from Vogue probably needs institutional care. " That would be my take. Indeed. Perhaps we should send (to Vogue) a link to this thread. Are online comments to Vogue possible?

03-18-2016, 02:49 PM	#15
noelpolar Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Goolwa, SA Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,310	This is probally true for your first marrage..... everybody wants to forget their first marrage....right?