[MRRiley]

...
Finally, AFTER you're done, your responsibilities continue. You thought you were going to spend a few hours casually taking photos, and now you realize you have even more hours to spend on your computer, processing your shots. I spend a lot more time working AFTER the wedding than I do taking the photos in the first place.
...
Will

This a a HUGELY important point! And it's also why wedding photography is so expensive when an experienced pro does it. For all intents and purposes the photographer's job has just begun once the wedding is over. For every hour spent shooting hours upon hours can be spent sorting and then post-processing the images for proofing. Then more time getting together with the B&G to select photos for the album and designing the layout. Then hours upon hours doing final PP on the enlargements preparing them for the printer. Then time spent delivering the final product to the B&G. After that there are orders for additional copies for family and friends. It's never ending...

I don't write this to scare you out of doing weddings but you have to know what is involved on the back end as much as on the front end.

Naturally, a small gratis shoot for a friend won't subject you to this much obligation formally but you will probably feel it anyway...

Mike

[GeneV]

Finally, AFTER you're done, your responsibilities continue. You thought you were going to spend a few hours casually taking photos, and now you realize you have even more hours to spend on your computer, processing your shots. I spend a lot more time working AFTER the wedding than I do taking the photos in the first place.

Will

Of course, as we discussed on another recent thread, not all pros perform the vital service of editing, but we can leave that to the other discussion.

Excellent points all around.

Now, I wonder who is doing video at this wedding?

[WMBP]

Of course, as we discussed on another recent thread, not all pros perform the vital service of editing, but we can leave that to the other discussion.

Right. A number of pros have started cutting way back on their post-processing work, or have at least started charging extra for it. I'm thinking of doing this myself - although I find it VERY difficult to take this step.

I do pick this up in this thread because there is a kind of relevance to the OP's question. To avoid post-processing work, the obvious thing to do is capture jpegs rather than shooting raw. In other words, you let your camera do the post-processing. This may be okay, for a lot of the photos, but I think it's valuable for an experienced shooter to shoot raw, and a fortiori it's even MORE valuable for an inexperienced shooter to shoot raw.

So for me, it's a given that a wedding photographer should shoot raw. The only real question is, raw alone? or raw + jpeg? I've tried raw + jpeg more than once and I find it simply horrible to have to deal with all those extra files, most of which I don't want. But I may try it again. And perhaps the OP here should consider that, if he shoots this wedding.

Will

[GeneV]

Right. A number of pros have started cutting way back on their post-processing work, or have at least started charging extra for it. I'm thinking of doing this myself - although I find it VERY difficult to take this step.

I do pick this up in this thread because there is a kind of relevance to the OP's question. To avoid post-processing work, the obvious thing to do is capture jpegs rather than shooting raw. In other words, you let your camera do the post-processing. This may be okay, for a lot of the photos, but I think it's valuable for an experienced shooter to shoot raw, and a fortiori it's even MORE valuable for an inexperienced shooter to shoot raw.

So for me, it's a given that a wedding photographer should shoot raw. The only real question is, raw alone? or raw + jpeg? I've tried raw + jpeg more than once and I find it simply horrible to have to deal with all those extra files, most of which I don't want. But I may try it again. And perhaps the OP here should consider that, if he shoots this wedding.

Will

I enjoy post processing. It is when I learn a lot about what I did right and wrong. I also enjoyed darkroom work. However, I don't need to turn a profit with my photos.

[xecutech]

First of all, I am blown away by the advice. Thank you to everyone who has added to this. I am starting to consider telling them to shop around. I really don't want to be responsible for things if they go wrong.

I guess I could tell them to pay for a cheaper package, and I will come to take additional photos, if the paid photographer doesn't mind. That way they will save some money, and possibly get some additional bonus pics from me.

I am going to go read up on some of the links from above, just to get some ideas. I don't think I would ever want to shoot weddings professionally after reading through all of this. I'm not a pro, so i haven't found my niche yet.

Thank you for all the advice.

[WMBP]

I enjoy post processing. It is when I learn a lot about what I did right and wrong. I also enjoyed darkroom work. However, I don't need to turn a profit with my photos.

I enjoyed darkroom work, too, and I enjoy post-processing my own photos, the photos I take for pleasure. I'm not in a hurry then.

But after a wedding I'll have 500, 600, maybe more photos to process, I'll be aware that the bride is returning from the honeymoon in five days and I won't have photos to show her. And most of the photos taken at a wedding are not especially interesting to me. I hope they'll be interesting to the client, who dearly loves crazy Uncle Larry and Granny McCloskey, but after you've shot a few weddings, a lot of the photos start looking like one another. I'm really excited when I take a photo that's different.

This is simply one of the stresses involved in shooting for money.

Will

[cwood]

First of all, I am blown away by the advice. Thank you to everyone who has added to this. I am starting to consider telling them to shop around. I really don't want to be responsible for things if they go wrong.

I guess I could tell them to pay for a cheaper package, and I will come to take additional photos, if the paid photographer doesn't mind. That way they will save some money, and possibly get some additional bonus pics from me.

I am going to go read up on some of the links from above, just to get some ideas. I don't think I would ever want to shoot weddings professionally after reading through all of this. I'm not a pro, so i haven't found my niche yet.

Thank you for all the advice.

Wedding photos don't hold the same significance for everyone. I bet fewer than 50% of all weddings have a paid photographer. So if you think you can take properly exposed and in-focus pictures for these people then don't be scared of doing it if that's what they want. Maybe look around for some of the cheaper photogs in your area and show them those photos and tell them that you will not be able to do what these other "cheap" pros can do (even if you think you can - just set their expectations low).

Wedding photography is no different than any other skilled trade - I'm not a roofer but I have helped friends install roof's on their houses (I've done it 3 times now) and 5+ years later there have been no leaks. As long as everyone realizes you are not the skilled tradesman who charges lots of money... and as long as you are not asked to do something you feel you cannot accomplish... then there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking this on

[WMBP]

Wedding photos don't hold the same significance for everyone. I bet fewer than 50% of all weddings have a paid photographer.

I've never seen a number, but that sounds about right. Thank god for that other 50%.

So if you think you can take properly exposed and in-focus pictures for these people then don't be scared of doing it if that's what they want.

Well, thinking you can do it is one thing, doing it is another. It's harder than many photographers - even serious, experienced amateurs - would think to take properly exposed, in-focus photos while you're running around, dealing with terrible lighting, handling incoming questions from the mother of the bride, etc.

Maybe look around for some of the cheaper photogs in your area and show them those photos and tell them that you will not be able to do what these other "cheap" pros can do (even if you think you can - just set their expectations low).

Well, I dunno about showing 'em the work of other photographers, but yes, lowering their expectations is a good idea. Lower your own expectations while you're at it.

Wedding photography is no different than any other skilled trade - I'm not a roofer but I have helped friends install roof's on their houses (I've done it 3 times now) and 5+ years later there have been no leaks. As long as everyone realizes you are not the skilled tradesman who charges lots of money... and as long as you are not asked to do something you feel you cannot accomplish... then there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking this on

I agree with the first statement here: wedding photography is a trade, a craft. It amuses me to hear wedding photographers talk about "my art", as some of them do. Pick up any history of photography and look for the masterpieces of wedding photography. They aren't in there, or at least they're damned rare. There's a lot more room for something resembling creativity in wedding photography than there is in, say, taking senior portraits. But a wedding photographer is still there to provide a service, do a job, get printable photos of a couple dozen critical moments at the wedding.

As for the "go ahead and do it" conclusion, well, it's not up to any of us to make this decision. Every wedding pro shot a first wedding at some point and many probably made mistakes. I look back at the photos I thought were really good several years ago, and some of them make me cringe now. Anyway, what I think a volunteer photographer has to have is confidence - the confidence that he CAN do the job because he's done the job before, or at least something very like it. You get that confidence by doing a variety of things that closely resemble shooting a wedding - being second shooter, or shooting formal banquets or parties, or at least practicing like mad.

In short, I think wedding photography is one of those things like entering the priesthood or going to graduate school in classical studies: anybody who CAN be discouraged, should be. :-)

Will

p.s. My Ph.D. is in classical studies....

[saintabroad]

I wasn't sure what was meant with that zoom price, either.

So perhaps I was exaggerating on the price a little (I never do get the exchange rates right... )

The razor sharp resolution the kit lens lacks is not likely to be as critical for this purpose. The biggest struggle for sharpness is in keeping the shutter speed up (or using flash) and picking the AF point.

That'd be it precisely. The OP's prime lens is 2 stops faster than the best zooms. Getting decent indoor portraits with a single flash is damned hard (there's a reason studios spend that much money on lighting equipment).

To compare, for a typical indoor scene, the zoom would require a shutter speed of 1/15-1/60 at ISO 400 and so would require a flash for proper exposure. By contrast, the same scene could be shot with the prime at 1/60-1/250 and so offer the option of not using the flash.

But I digress, the OP should talk to the B&G to be sure of the options. If it's really a choice between you and point-and-shoot friends and they understand your inexperience as a wedding photographer and still opt for you, face into it, remember the basics and keep your wits about you.

excutech


This is a very nice thing you are doing for your friends, and you got some very awesome advices here. But, if the alternative is the P & S pictures, then I say you relax and shoot as many as you can. Bring extra batteries if you got them, and SD cards too. Soft filter is something cheap and it may add an extra dimension to it. I think that you will be just fine.

[layfsphoto]

I have shot about 50 to 80 weddings in my life. Recent 2 in the last couple of months.

MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER...
THE BRIDE IS THE BOSS.. MAKE HER HAPPY.

2nd after service.
Quickly return them to do the set up shots at alter.

AND HAVE FUN. ITS NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

Bruce Layfield Photography on www.photofins.com | Jessica and Bradley EXAMPLE..

[GeneV]

I agree with the first statement here: wedding photography is a trade, a craft. It amuses me to hear wedding photographers talk about "my art", as some of them do. Pick up any history of photography and look for the masterpieces of wedding photography. They aren't in there, or at least they're damned rare. There's a lot more room for something resembling creativity in wedding photography than there is in, say, taking senior portraits. But a wedding photographer is still there to provide a service, do a job, get printable photos of a couple dozen critical moments at the wedding. ....

So interesting. I would say that the vast majority of young couples really just want technically correct photos of the usual wedding elements. Art might actually be unwelcome.

[WMBP]

So interesting. I would say that the vast majority of young couples really just want technically correct photos of the usual wedding elements. Art might actually be unwelcome.

Well, it's hard for me to say for sure what the marrying public actually wants. If you were to judge from the web sites of a lot of wedding photographers, what the public wants (or what the photographers THINK the public wants) are photos of the bride and groom kissing while standing under a highway underpass, or photos of the bridal party walking barefoot along the beach, or photos of the bride throwing her dress into a city dumpster. This kind of thing today is what some people mean when they say they have a "photo-journalistic" style. Hardly anything journalistic about it. "Creative" setups like that are the sort of thing that causes real photo-journalists to have their Pulitzers taken back.

Of course there are less extreme cases that still feed the bride's fantasies. I see a lot of nicely posed and lit but otherwise not too crazy or improbable portraits of brides at or near the church, etc. I'm talking about what's on the photographers' web sites. The brides are invariably young, thin and beautiful. In fact, if truth be told, more than a few of the brides being touted on those gorgeous web sites aren't brides at all - they're hired models. I thought about doing this myself when I was getting started.

Anyway, I think some brides go to web sites, see that kind of stuff, and naturally they find it appealing. And the photographers usually do NOT include much else on their web site: Almost nobody has table shots displayed prominently on his site.

In short, I think there's a gap between what brides think they want, and what they really want.

Will

[GeneV]

Well, it's hard for me to say for sure what the marrying public actually wants. If you were to judge from the web sites of a lot of wedding photographers, what the public wants (or what the photographers THINK the public wants) are photos of the bride and groom kissing while standing under a highway underpass, or photos of the bridal party walking barefoot along the beach, or photos of the bride throwing her dress into a city dumpster.
Will

Of the four weddings I attended last summer (one in your neck of the woods), only one pro tried or even advertised anything in that style, or took a shot that was remotely creative. The rest were the usual poses. The "creative" shot was appreciated more by my wife and I than the bride.

[saintabroad]

ITS NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

I disagree. It's not like some studio shoot where "you can always get another one done".

A wedding shoot must be done with respect and critical perception.