[Lord Lucan]

With all the talk that phone cameras are just as good as ILCs etc etc, how people would feel if their professionally hired wedding photographer used one for the pictures?

I'm not proposing to do this myself, I've never done a wedding and never will, but I'd feel very under-whelmed if I were paying. Is this done? It's a long time since I've been to a wedding, there aren't so many these days. I know some wedding pros use m4/3 which would make me hesitant to bring my own FF to a wedding as a guest in case it looked like I was trying to upstage them.

In film days most wedding pros would use MF cameras (my father did) which set them apart and gave them additional presence and authority, even if some were actually cheating by using 35mm backs

[Rondec]

With all the talk that phone cameras are just as good as ILCs etc etc, how people would feel if their professionally hired wedding photographer used one for the pictures?

I'm not proposing to do this myself, I've never done a wedding and never will, but I'd feel very under-whelmed if I were paying. Is this done? It's a long time since I've been to a wedding, there aren't so many these days. I know some wedding pros use m4/3 which would make me hesitant to bring my own FF to a wedding as a guest in case it looked like I was trying to upstage them.

In film days most wedding pros would use MF cameras (my father did) which set them apart and gave them additional presence and authority, even if some were actually cheating by using 35mm backs

I don't think most people would go for that. There is a certain expectation of gear that folks who are shelling out thousands of dollars to have their wedding photographed expect and showing up with a cell phone wouldn't quite fit the bill.

From a photographer's standpoint there would be problems too.

(1) Accessories -- it is challenging to use phone cameras with off camera flash. It probably can be cobbled together somehow, but flash photography is something that is really important for dark venues and good wedding photographers don't use direct on camera flash.

(2) Ergonomics -- shooting an eight to ten hour day holding a cell phone camera would be miserable. Even if the results were exactly the same, there is something about having physical buttons and dials that makes an ILC more comfortable use -- never mind the grip.

(3) Battery life -- a wedding day ends up being at least eight hours of pretty intensive shooting. I don't think most cell phone cameras can hold up to that sort of usage and most don't have easily replaceable batteries.

(4) Lack of viewfinder -- this probably goes along with ergonomics, but it seems like the most uncomfortable way to hold a camera is at arms length, but that's what you have to do when you are using the back of the camera to shoot with.

(5) Lack of flexibility with lenses -- Many cell phones these days have multiple lenses, but it isn't like you can choose to mount a 85 mm f1.4 and then swap to a 24-70 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8. A lot of the narrow depth of field photography done with cell phones is through emulation modes.

My wife shoots weddings and she wouldn't dream of using a cell phone camera for anything more than a quick snap of something.

[Midorime]

I could see having a second (or third) shooter with a phone to get some different types of shots since people react to a phone very differently than to a big camera body. DSLRs and other big camera bodies tend to invite posing. For the same reason I usually have a GR with me for event photography since I feel like it makes it easier to blend in with the attendees and allows me to get different types of shots.

[jgnfld]

I could see having a second (or third) shooter with a phone to get some different types of shots since people react to a phone very differently than to a big camera body. DSLRs and other big camera bodies tend to invite posing. For the same reason I usually have a GR with me for event photography since I feel like it makes it easier to blend in with the attendees and allows me to get different types of shots.

Good point. Some phone-style (style here including differential subject reaction to camera/phone) pics could well add some counterpoint in a generally more formal album.

[mlag]

I could see having a second (or third) shooter with a phone to get some different types of shots since people react to a phone very differently than to a big camera body. DSLRs and other big camera bodies tend to invite posing. For the same reason I usually have a GR with me for event photography since I feel like it makes it easier to blend in with the attendees and allows me to get different types of shots.

Agree.
Add action-cams and drones for those that aim fot the more exotic wedding photography styles and scenes...
But in most cases the ”official portrait” pictures come from MF or FF camera's...., while the after party pic’s tend to come from phones (and less professional photographers).

We see similar move in filming movies, mostly big gear, but Netflix allowed filming with smaller 4Kmovie capable ’photo’ cameras of Canon and Panasonic... technology evolves quickly.
Phone’s get better and will pop up at weddings and other events...
But it will take much time before they can shoot close-ups of racing formula 1 race cars... wide lenses ...

[UncleVanya]

I could see second shooter using the phone in the reception for more relaxed less camera influenced candid shots. But for the reasons already stated the main event and post ceremony shots would still be likely to require a dedicated camera.

[ramseybuckeye]

I’ve seen some wedding photos that look like they could have been taken with a phone. And I’ve watched some wedding photographers with obvious lack of skills and knowledge of the equipment. I went to a meetup workshop a few years ago where a seasoned photographer was showing how to pose people for group shots like they were selphies, that guy knew his gear and everything technical, but little idea about composition or imagination.

I think most people would object to paying for cell phone photos, and they should be, but they need to be more concerned with the photographer’s skills than gear.

[Mooncatt]

With a phone, you have to get up close and personal to get a good photo. Much of wedding photography is taken from a distance so the photographer isn't distracting or getting in the way of other guests. If I were hiring an official photographer, one of the things I'd be checking is the type of gear they use. If they only have a smartphone, no dice. There will be plenty of other people there with smartphones already taking photos.

[bwgv001]

I would not use a phone, but at eh end it's about the result. If they show me examples upfront that impress me, why not.

[JohnX]

Supposing the tog was someone like Rankin?

[JohnMc]

With all the talk that phone cameras are just [...] even if some were actually cheating by using 35mm backs

My first 1040 job (tax withheld) was at a hospital (path lab) using Leica and Nikon macro and micro gear mostly on various cancers of the skin. Some of the are doc's would send patients over to us, and some had or got their own gear and tried to figure it out. Polaroid came out with various close up and macro set ups which made part of the process easier, cheated me out of much of the darkroom end, ostensibly what I had been hired to do. 50 years later I visit a dermatologist for the first time and he whips out his iPhone 13. The Sharpie marker is virtually the same though, but he had a series of crisp, clear general and marco shots loaded and notated into the record before I had redressed. Yes, he could have had 'better' using the Nikon d750 set up he had in the cabinet.


Even though you're only asking for a friend... tools are tools. Most wedding shots never go over 8x10 or get looked at after few years, and given the viewing medium is shifting towards digital. I had a friend and client who was a wood carver of some note, he used river rocks instead of hammers by and large when needed because that was what felt good in his hand and all the tool he needed.

[Bob 256]

Many phones use digital zoom and a fixed lens (some have several fixed lenses). Their photos can look really great if "zoom" isn't used but in weddings, a good zoom lens is very useful and the image resolution stays high even when zoomed in to the action. Not so with those pocket wonders (and the user may not know that until they look at the result up close or try for an enlargement). Phones are made for taking photos that will be looked at on phones - not art prints or keepsakes.

[RGlasel]

There is a certain expectation of gear that folks who are shelling out thousands of dollars to have their wedding photographed expect

You nailed it on the head. It doesn't matter how good the photographer(s) is(are) or how good the photos turn out, unless the client is rich and frivolous (and those people are too uncommon to support the hundreds of thousands of professional wedding photographers out there). It is far more common for couples to decide to forgo professional wedding photographs all together and simply rely on guests to take and share the photos they take on whatever device they happen to bring. Weddings are all about making a public statement and how you incorporate photography into that statement is more important than the actual photographs of the event. After 33 years of marriage, the only photograph of our wedding that gets looked at on a regular basis (more than once a decade) is the one in a frame hanging in the hallway to the bathroom and to be honest, I can't remember the last time I paid attention to it. Guests still comment about it though so yes, it is still worth what we paid "Cookie" to bring her Hasselblad to a local park.

[gatorguy]

Supposing the tog was someone like Rankin?

With a smartphone? Even without I'd probably say thank you for the offer, but no thanks. I've never seen any indication weddings were his forte, something quite different from doing the type of fashion/portrait shoots he so very impressively does. Now ask me if I'd pay to go to a class he offered.

For other events and more casual photos I'd not hesitate for a moment to use my Pixel, even if I'd still prefer to use my DSLR's which I enjoy using more and probably get better results with depending on the need. Weddings? Absolutely ILC.

[Apet-Sure]

The only scenario I can imagine where a cellphone might be adequate:
1. The wedding couple knew the photographer personally
2. They knew the photographer was able to take great shots with his/her phone
3. Their photography budget was extremely limited
4. The wedding was going to be a more informal affair where an intrusive photographer would not be a problem
5. They don't require 'professional' results, only a record of the event

In my film days I shot a few 'shoestring' weddings for friends on very limited budgets. I had decent gear (two SLRs, various lenses, off-camera flash with many accessories). When I met with the couple before the wedding, I showed them samples of my work and explained what I could and couldn't do. If they were OK with that, then I could save them money. Otherwise I suggested they hire a professional. Some (lots?) of folks can't afford to spend thousands or even hundreds of dollars on a photographer. There's a place for a personal friend cell-tographer. But in most cases, absolutely not.