Photographing the Wedding of an immediate family member

IMO, you are all over reacting. "Wedding" is not a 4 letter word. If you are a decently versatile photographer then a wedding isn't that big a deal, especially a free one where the couple has been warned they may get what they paid for. Being not much of a party animal, I'd be just as happy doing the shooting as being a guest.

-Being too close to the subject you can loose objectivity. For example When people post photos of their children on the forum they often cant see how bad the photo is because it has their precious child in it.
That's mostly a problem when a new mommy buys a camera to photograph the new baby with no preexisting skill or ideas on what makes a good photograph. That's not the case here. Anyway, judging the photos comes after the fact and is the job of the newlyweds, not the photographer.

My concern for bias would be that your attachment is to either the groom or the bride, but not both--in this case the groom. You might tend to provide great reception coverage of the groom but only get the bride when she is with the groom. The size of the issue depends on how much you like your new sister-in-law. If you think your brother caught a good one then it'll be easy to do well. If you think he ought not be marrying her then you'll really have to work hard to cover her equally.

Sounds like we'll be working hard. Nah we're no novices. My GF Cara Grimshaw Photography > redirect
My weakness is that I don't like being interrupted when I'm eating.
 
I sometimes do weddings. But I also did one for family members (uncle of my wife). It went well but I wouldn't do it anymore cause I'm not on a single picture. I simply wasn't there.
All the pics went well and the couple was pleased and thankful. That's all fine for me... but I only was on some - sorry - lousy digicam photos on guests pictures.
When you're working, it doesn't matter cause you don't realize. You give your very best. But ypu will be forgotten in the future.

Just my 2 cents

Greets, Gerhard

Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk
 
I sometimes do weddings. But I also did one for family members (uncle of my wife). It went well but I wouldn't do it anymore cause I'm not on a single picture. I simply wasn't there.
All the pics went well and the couple was pleased and thankful. That's all fine for me... but I only was on some - sorry - lousy digicam photos on guests pictures.
When you're working, it doesn't matter cause you don't realize. You give your very best. But ypu will be forgotten in the future.

Just my 2 cents

Greets, Gerhard

Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk

I'll make sure every relative with a camera brings one
 
But ypu will be forgotten in the future.
You forget...I have a camera, my GF has 2 *LOL* (a pair of D810) we can always choose to just photograph each other.
 
IMO, you are all over reacting. "Wedding" is not a 4 letter word. If you are a decently versatile photographer then a wedding isn't that big a deal, especially a free one where the couple has been warned they may get what they paid for. Being not much of a party animal, I'd be just as happy doing the shooting as being a guest.

-Being too close to the subject you can loose objectivity. For example When people post photos of their children on the forum they often cant see how bad the photo is because it has their precious child in it.
That's mostly a problem when a new mommy buys a camera to photograph the new baby with no preexisting skill or ideas on what makes a good photograph. That's not the case here. Anyway, judging the photos comes after the fact and is the job of the newlyweds, not the photographer.
My concern for bias would be that your attachment is to either the groom or the bride, but not both--in this case the groom. You might tend to provide great reception coverage of the groom but only get the bride when she is with the groom. The size of the issue depends on how much you like your new sister-in-law. If you think your brother caught a good one then it'll be easy to do well. If you think he ought not be marrying her then you'll really have to work hard to cover her equally.

right, always balance the groom and bride pics
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 
IMO, you are all over reacting. "Wedding" is not a 4 letter word. If you are a decently versatile photographer then a wedding isn't that big a deal, especially a free one where the couple has been warned they may get what they paid for. Being not much of a party animal, I'd be just as happy doing the shooting as being a guest.

-Being too close to the subject you can loose objectivity. For example When people post photos of their children on the forum they often cant see how bad the photo is because it has their precious child in it.
That's mostly a problem when a new mommy buys a camera to photograph the new baby with no preexisting skill or ideas on what makes a good photograph. That's not the case here. Anyway, judging the photos comes after the fact and is the job of the newlyweds, not the photographer.
My concern for bias would be that your attachment is to either the groom or the bride, but not both--in this case the groom. You might tend to provide great reception coverage of the groom but only get the bride when she is with the groom. The size of the issue depends on how much you like your new sister-in-law. If you think your brother caught a good one then it'll be easy to do well. If you think he ought not be marrying her then you'll really have to work hard to cover her equally.

right, always balance the groom and bride pics
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
I never learned how to do that in school :(
having to photograph an immediate family's member's wedding is not easy.
I talked to our friend KC who is one of the best wedding photographers in the region and all he did was laugh at us.

Thank goodness we don't celebrate Thanksgiving; and even if we did, the Wedding is just 2 days before Thanksgiving in Canada ;)
 
Sounds like a family tradition
 

Most reactions

Back
Top