[Canada_Rockies]

I have taken a few weddings. One of the more interesting ones was in a church that did not allow photographers to ruin the ceremony. They did have a "cry room" with a glass front window behind which I hid with high speed film, Pentax KX (the real one ) and Pentax A 70-210 on tripod.

I do not particularly enjoy the stress level, but at that time there were few enough photographers in this rural area that I was pressured into working the weddings. I might have made $2.50 an hour on the best paying one. In my opinion, based on my long experience, wedding photographers are a special breed, and I do not count my self among them.

[George Lama]

We are up against the big boys flogging ever more sophisticated kit to guys who don't realise that that photography is so much more than just a camera<snip>

Just read a post on the Professional Photographers of America forum - here's a direct quote from a pro, certified, veteran photographer:

"Also when I show up on a shoot with an art director or producer, I want them to see Nikon on the front of my camera. That name means I am serious and it denotes pro."

Based on his statement, guys like Benjamin Kanarek and Kerrik James (not to mention the countless of photographers in this forum) are just a bunch of unprofessional nubs who carry around toy cameras.

This is the kind of perception that not only Canon/Nikon are putting out there, but we the photographers as a profession are passing right on to the customers who are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

[justinr]

Just read a post on the Professional Photographers of America forum - here's a direct quote from a pro, certified, veteran photographer:

"Also when I show up on a shoot with an art director or producer, I want them to see Nikon on the front of my camera. That name means I am serious and it denotes pro."

Based on his statement, guys like Benjamin Kanarek and Kerrik James (not to mention the countless of photographers in this forum) are just a bunch of unprofessional nubs who carry around toy cameras.

This is the kind of perception that not only Canon/Nikon are putting out there, but we the photographers as a profession are passing right on to the customers who are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

[/INDENT]

Exactly my point. By extension that means that just so long as you turn up at a wedding with Canon or Nikon on the camera then you are a 'Pro'.

The big two (but especially Canon) have got their marketing strategy up their as number one priority, the cameras themselves come pretty much second place. Why a new model every five minutes? Why all the bells and whistles and 'features' that few will ever use and do little if anything to improve picture taking? What's with the stratification of model types (Compact, bridge, pro, semi pro etc etc) which varies around the world and so on. It's not about making us better photographers it's about shifting boxes but they are in business so it's what we must expect of them. However, as you rightly point out that doesn't mean to say that we should meekly go along with it all.

I opted out of the rat race by going MF and bailing out of Canon but this larger format is nowhere near as flexible as dSLR hence my return to it via Pentax. But you try and say anything negative about the big C, they have an army of loyalists ready to dump on you just as soon as you stop grovelling in front of their god which turns me off the brand as much as anything else.

Perhaps we should go back to our fellow on the US pro forum and ask just what happens when you turn up with a Mamiya, Hasselblad or Leica? One of the delights of the Mamiya is that it is a very basic camera in many ways so it could be argued that it requires a higher degree of professionalism than any dSLR from the big two.

Justin.

[Nass]

A thread which is about a wedding photographer forcing the client to do the cutting down has turned into a brand bashing thread. How does this help?

I offer you the flipside of this.

So I was at a wedding last week and there were 2 pros working it, one with Canon and the other with Nikon. I had my k-7 with 55-200 kit on it.

The Nikon guy was pretty amateur, he didn't give any direction and just sort of mooched awkwardly. He took only a few pics and his timing was disastrous. He pissed the groom off bigtime.

The Canon guy was really good, made people pose well, very chatty and friendly with clients. He took as many as his camera would take. I struck up a friendship with Canon guy and started using my K-7. My machine-gun speed was about twice his, and he immediately said that he wanted my exposures because it took so many more. He was VERY complementary about the K-7. He had a play and loved the inbuilt SR, it's made him consider getting one.

Now the reason I'll happily machine gun away is to have choice. Of critical moments and poses I'd rather have 8 to choose from than 2. I'll put them onto a CD and David and Nat can choose from that (I was a guest at the wedding not a photographer). I took about 500 so it might give them a few keepers - which is nice because for them it's just an extra.

In terms of this question, it all really depends on the package the couple ordered surely. If they ordered a full package then editing and PP should be done by the photographer. But maybe they're on a budget and just hired the photographer's time during the wedding? Or perhaps the photographer would rather avoid having to make a choice before PPing them, and thus be sure he did the images they really wanted? Perhaps it's lazyness too, that's a perfectly acceptable possibility.

[justinr]

It is the nature of threads on all forums that they do veer to a greater or lesser extent from the original title, indeed, forums would be dull insipid places if they didn't. However, it's also worth noting that the first to object to any wandering are invariably those who don't like the direction they perceive it as taking. It's also worth noting that you differentiate between photographers by reference to the brand of camera used.

But anyway, being a 'professional' involves so much more than just wearing the right badge, it is a question of attitude and presenting the bride with the best of the bunch is part of that as is knowing just how much direction to apply or how to pose guests without annoying them and so on. Indeed, the actual photography is the easy bit.

As for hiring two photographers then I think that is just a little unfair unless their roles are clearly understood. If one is there to do the formals and the other is doing reportage and they both know and understand that then all well and good, but having two trying to do the same job is a recipe for disaster. What's the second fellow meant to do if the first has already been favoured? If I was him I'd be totally pee'd off as indeed it seems he was. If the groom got the hump then it's his own fault, he (they) should have planned things better.

Justin.

[opfor]

As others have pointed out in different threads, it is very hard to carve out a niche these days. Digitals abound and everyone knows that having the latest camera makes them a great photographer (just as they say in the ads, it's easy just point and shoot, the camera does it all).
I do weddings, but only for people that I know. It's not a market that I would actively pursue. As I pointed out in a different thread, I did a wedding last summer where there were 30 to 40 guests with different levels of digital cameras. My only customers were the B&G, everyone else got the pic they wanted themselves. What can you do?
The problem with the original yahoo described by the OP is that here in the UK you have people using such examples as a reason to mandate "qualifications" for photographers.
Think about it for a minute, how would you qualify something as subjective as photography? How many ways would you divide the skill? Would a piece of paper on the wall mean that you are actually hiring someone who knows what they are doing? Who do you let decide what is acceptable and why?
You are always going to have bad people no matter what the career, from builders to doctors or even lawyers. All you can do is laugh it off.

[walro]

I am an amateur. I have done a grand total of 2 weddings. The first wedding I hated, the second I loved. I am not a pro.

But, there is no way I would ever hand out unedited photos. I don't care how good they are, I have too much pride in my work to do that. When I was first starting I did an engagement session and the couple wanted to see the pictures (for a very weird reason I won't discuss here). I let them, and they wanted retakes. I did the retakes (bad idea, but I was just a beginner), then when all the photos were edited, the one they ended up choosing was one of the originals. They liked it much better after it was post-processed.

I don't understand why any professional would do this. There might be pictures a couple would throw out that could be cropped or otherwise edited in such a way as to make for a very compelling picture.

Occasionally, I will show someone an image on my LCD just to give them confidence and a good feeling about the shoot. But showing completely unedited photos? NEVER!

[benjikan]

Just read a post on the Professional Photographers of America forum - here's a direct quote from a pro, certified, veteran photographer:

"Also when I show up on a shoot with an art director or producer, I want them to see Nikon on the front of my camera. That name means I am serious and it denotes pro."

Based on his statement, guys like Benjamin Kanarek and Kerrik James (not to mention the countless of photographers in this forum) are just a bunch of unprofessional nubs who carry around toy cameras.

This is the kind of perception that not only Canon/Nikon are putting out there, but we the photographers as a profession are passing right on to the customers who are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

JFYI...I have NEVER had a client look at the gear I use during a shoot. They assume I know what I am doing. The only time someone took note of my gear was when I was working at East End Studios in Paris and a young female photographer saw my K20D with a 16-50 Pentax mounted on it and said, "Wow, nice looking camera, what is it?" I let her play with it and she was really impressed. She was using a Canon 40D...

[Ash]

Good policy too Ben.
One should be secure enough in what he/she does and able to judge what gear is sufficient for the job that it shouldn't matter to the client.

[jboyde]

It is often suggested that offering a budget service and printing a few cards is the path to immediate bookings and the snatching of work from under the noses of full timers, it certainly doesn't work like that in this part of the world. There are only so many weddings to be photographed and trying to break into the market around here is not just a question of price, there is also tradition and loyalty to established operators. A friend in his early forties once proudly announced to me that he had already booked his funeral with the same undertaker that had been burying his family for generations, that's a hell of a mindset to get to change.

The local established photographer who took over from his father has only started advertising in the last couple of months and I hear he's gone very quiet of late. If he's not getting the bookings then there are not the bookings to be got however cheap the service offered. In fact I think he rather blames me for taking all his work (if only that were the case) but it's just so much easier to blame the new kid on the block.

I to get frustrated at seeing the antics of some wedding photographers and also the results where I know I could do better but as has been remarked on this forum and is gradually being realised in the photographic world generally, the great IT revolution of the past 15 years, of which digital photography is just a part, has completely changed the way we communicate and in many respects has devalued photography along the way.

Let's face it, anyone can be a great photographer now, why? Because that is how the Canon's, Nikon's et al of the world have been marketing their goods and if uncle Fred and his shiny new DSLR is willing to do the job for a few quid or even free as a present then who's to blame the bride, after all she has been been subjected to the same marketing pressures and believes that all that matters is having a camera with X or D or preferably both somewhere in the model name. It is the major retailers and manufacturers who have been competing with the pro's, not just the poor guys who buy into the dream.

How do we overcome this? I'm not at all sure that there is a universal formula we can apply but each of us who care for the craft have to do our bit in pointing out that quality tells, and back up our sales pitch with the goods. We are up against the big boys flogging ever more sophisticated kit to guys who don't realise that that photography is so much more than just a camera, and yet we continue buying from the very same people who have laid such a curse upon the business.

Rant over

Justin.

Next time I'm in Ireland I'm buying you a pint!!!

[Gaelen]

As of late I have seen at least 20 "pro" photographers that charge an arm and a leg for weddings and I can not believe it. They images they hand over to their clients are attrocious.

I've had 3 requests in the past 2 months to do weddings for people I know, and I have turned them down as I do not want to be responsible for their wedding pictures. I am warming up to the idea of a few engagement pictures here and there for close friends but weddings are a whole different game.

I have 3 good friends getting married this year, all of which have asked me to help them PICK their photographers, they know I'd never do it myself but I am honoured that they trust my judgment in the field to help them pick.

There are a lot of good local companies around, but some only offer a 4-5 hours of their time for the wedding for a few thousand dollars which i think is outragious

Just my 2 cents

[Ash]

As of late I have seen at least 20 "pro" photographers that charge an arm and a leg for weddings and I can not believe it. They images they hand over to their clients are attrocious.

Those you mentioned are not a good gauge on the standards of the profession. They're everywhere - I see them also, OTOH they're not an adequately justified impetus to proclaim "I can do it better" and jump into the industry.

Wise choice in declining to do your friends' weddings - but if you shoot professionally in other capacities there's less to learn to get into it and do it well . All the best in choosing their photographers.

[Tommy]

I let her play with it and she was really impressed.

Are we still talking about wedding photography here?

/Tommy

[GeneV]

To answer the original question - it is definitely a trend. As a result it is one of the first things I address when talking with a couple. I explain to them that unless they REALLY want 1000's of pictures I would never subject anyone to that sort of punishment. If they say they want to see them anyway I still talk them out of it. Sometimes (not often for me) the final version of a photo looks WAY different than the original and I don't want anyone seeing the original version. They are paying me as an artist for the final product and thats all they are going to get..

Weddings and receptions need care to light properly--not the kind of care that comes from 2,000+ images. What comes out of the camera, especially in an indoor location which high ceilings and odd colored walls like a wedding, is seldom what I want to see in a final photo. It is also doubtful that the photographer is shooting anything but jpegs if he can dump that many photos quickly. Jpegs are often excellent, but raw files give us the most chance for the best and most creative pp. Good pp is as essential for the final print as a good darkroom is for film. (Processing the raw files is usually where I make my first cut, as well)

[MJB DIGITAL]

I consider myself to be a heavy shooter. I pull about 600 and my assistant will normally pull the same. (max)

Generally we come out with an average of about a thousand shots.

I know that it is MANY more shots than old school shooters used to take, but it is digital now and clients expect more shots.

At the office, I tend to cull the total number down to about 700 by pulling dupes and bad exposures.

On a 10 hr wedding gig, 600 shots would average about a photo a minute. During dinner you wont get anything but I shoot about ten of the ring exchange, five of the kiss and any exciting or emotional moment gets heavy coverage.

A lot of times I'm creating (congruent) dupes on purpose with slightly different comps such as, subject on the left, subject on the right, vertical and landscape. Yes, I do give these kinds of dupes to the client but I shoot them mainly to aid me in composing the layout of the wedding album.

Click the link in my sig and you will be able to find some wedding album layouts and maybe understand why I want to cover heavy and have different compositions.

That all being said.

If you spray and pray, you wont work for me!

While I'm shooting, I consider myself to be either 'riding the light' or 'driving my camera'. I'm constantly thinking about my exposure and layout while my eye (including the eyes on the sides and back of my head) stay tuned into any emotional or significant events.

I typed too much.