First wedding, please C & C

[Jaemie]

If an architect decided to get on the proverbial high horse about what he/she is willing to do for the client he/she would be a very poor architect. I may have some learning to do about wedding photography, but I know that being a photo snob won't get me any clients. At the end of the day, your client pays your bills!

sent from mobile

It has nothing to do with snobbery and everything to do with being a professional. Your client is relying on you to guide him/her to what works and to avoid what does not. The role is much more than just taking technically brilliant photos. The client is not paying you to simply follow orders and do A, B, and C. As mentioned above, it's about using your skill and knowledge and artistry to tell a story, and in the process you have a professional obligation to steer your client towards good photography.

 

[OrionsByte]

If I were you I would definitely make a second pass at these with a less aggressive processing strategy. I'm not, nor will I ever be, a wedding photographer, but it seems to me that this is one situation where you definitely don't want your photography to distract from the subject - do you know what I mean?

There are times when, as a photographer, your artistic vision supersedes the subject matter, and suddenly an otherwise boring shot of a landmark or whatever that thousands of people have taken shots of turns in to something that stands out and gets people's attention. For a wedding though, you're there to record an event. Yes, your artistic vision and experience with other subjects will influence the shots you take and the direction your processing goes, but the bride and groom aren't going to open their wedding album in 20 years to admire your photography - they want to remember the day. I have certainly seen some amazing artistically shot weddings, but those are from seasoned pros, and their talent enhances the record rather than getting in the way.

Just my opinion. If these were my wedding photos, I would feel like the photographer took artistic license with my memories, and that would make me a little sad. They're certainly not the worst I've seen though, and I do think they're salvageable with less heavy-handed processing.

 

[rexbobcat]

A point to note though is from talking to a few ladies about their wedding photos, most had asked for some kind of selective colouring on some photo. I am not a major fan of it but done subtly it can be nice. I think for pro photographers to be so down on it is a little bit of a lemmings attitude because a lot of the non photographer public seem to like it.

That non-photographers might like selective coloring, and/or that clients might ask for or expect it, does not make it any less of a weak photographic gimmick and is a poor reason to indulge in its practice. In many ways, selective coloring is to photography what the McMansion is to architecture; both are rather tasteless and lacking in artistic merit, yet persist at the fancy of a pedestrian market. Photographers can be, indeed should be, more proactive in educating their clients and steering them towards photographic themes that won't appear dated or cheap when viewed in future years.

If an architect decided to get on the proverbial high horse about what he/she is willing to do for the client he/she would be a very poor architect. I may have some learning to do about wedding photography, but I know that being a photo snob won't get me any clients. At the end of the day, your client pays your bills!

sent from mobile

But then without the architect the client doesn't have a structure built especially if they're under contract. How is refusing to do something because it looks bad getting on a high horse? I can almost promise you that the consensus on this forum is that clients should not pick their own poses for example, and in the same way they should not tell you what kind of style you should process in.

If your photos are good, then there's no need to be a snob. The client will hire you for the photos on your portfolio, not to squish you into their little box of what they think is a good photograph. Some people just aren't to that point yet.

 

[BlueMeanieTSi]

steering them towards photographic themes that won't appear dated or cheap when viewed in future years.

HA, because anyone can accurately predict what will not look dated or cheap in the future.

 

[o hey tyler]

The couple loved them and so did the rest of the inlaws. I'm not entirely happy with all of my results, but I did better than the photography student that did their engagement shoot.

The question is, do you want to consistently live up to the expectations of the bride, groom, and inlaws? Or do you want to live up to the expectations of seasoned photographers so that you can improve your craft?

I would suggest the latter.

 

[fjrabon]

A point to note though is from talking to a few ladies about their wedding photos, most had asked for some kind of selective colouring on some photo. I am not a major fan of it but done subtly it can be nice. I think for pro photographers to be so down on it is a little bit of a lemmings attitude because a lot of the non photographer public seem to like it.

That non-photographers might like selective coloring, and/or that clients might ask for or expect it, does not make it any less of a weak photographic gimmick and is a poor reason to indulge in its practice. In many ways, selective coloring is to photography what the McMansion is to architecture; both are rather tasteless and lacking in artistic merit, yet persist at the fancy of a pedestrian market. Photographers can be, indeed should be, more proactive in educating their clients and steering them towards photographic themes that won't appear dated or cheap when viewed in future years.

If an architect decided to get on the proverbial high horse about what he/she is willing to do for the client he/she would be a very poor architect. I may have some learning to do about wedding photography, but I know that being a photo snob won't get me any clients. At the end of the day, your client pays your bills!

sent from mobile

well, not really. True architects uphold their brand, and their work benefits for it. Frank Lloyd Wright never suffered for lack of work, and he not only didn't listen to the clients wishes as to the house, but he in fact insisted on exactly what furniture should be in the rooms. You don't have to go to that extreme, but you should develop your style and clients who like your style will gravitate towards you. I'm not particularly saying anything about selective coloring here, but I will say that if you did this just because that's what the client wanted, you never know how many future clients will see that work and think "man, that's tacky, I'll never hire THAT guy."

Additionally, clients who are willing to pay more for your services are those that would appreciate YOUR artistic vision. That is, after all, what they're paying you for. The types of clients that want you to tailor to their tastes are the clients who view you as 'the guy who owns the camera and pushes the button' and those clients tend to bicker about every little charge, and think you're wildly overpayed.

 

[Jaemie]

steering them towards photographic themes that won't appear dated or cheap when viewed in future years.

HA, because anyone can accurately predict what will not look dated or cheap in the future.

I can. It's my superpower.

 

[BlueMeanieTSi]

80's hair styles come full circle in 2045.

 

[Designer]

I offered to do their wedding free because said student was going to charge a lot for worse results than mine.

I know you are generous and helpful, Ernesto, but you need to be paid for this. As you said, the other photog was going to do much worse.

 

[Designer]

If an architect decided to get on the proverbial high horse about what he/she is willing to do for the client he/she would be a very poor architect. I may have some learning to do about wedding photography, but I know that being a photo snob won't get me any clients. At the end of the day, your client pays your bills!

It has nothing to do with snobbery and everything to do with being a professional. Your client is relying on you to guide him/her to what works and to avoid what does not. The role is much more than just taking technically brilliant photos. The client is not paying you to simply follow orders and do A, B, and C. As mentioned above, it's about using your skill and knowledge and artistry to tell a story, and in the process you have a professional obligation to steer your client towards good photography.

O.K., that's two in one thread!

I think the world would suffer a lot less mediocre and downright awful "art" if artists would strive to educate people more instead of simply being snobbish bores and being offended.

Meanwhile, it wouldn't hurt the general populace one bit to become somewhat educated about art.

 

[o hey tyler]

I offered to do their wedding free because said student was going to charge a lot for worse results than mine.

I know you are generous and helpful, Ernesto, but you need to be paid for this. As you said, the other photog was going to do much worse.

I don't agree with this. I do not think that Ernesto should be charging at this point in their photographic journey. I think it's great to build experience by shooting events for free, and he won't have to worry about any potential legal repercussions due to money being exchanged. It's happened before to amateurs, and seemingly never ends well.

 

[mishele]

80's hair styles come full circle in 2045.

Don't laugh....neon is in now!!!

 

[ecphoto]

The couple loved them and so did the rest of the inlaws. I'm not entirely happy with all of my results, but I did better than the photography student that did their engagement shoot.

The question is, do you want to consistently live up to the expectations of the bride, groom, and inlaws? Or do you want to live up to the expectations of seasoned photographers so that you can improve your craft?

I would suggest the latter.

Of course I want the latter Tyler, I want to become a better photographer. If I didn't want to do better I would not have put my self out here like this.

 

[Infidel]

The couple loved them and so did the rest of the inlaws. I'm not entirely happy with all of my results, but I did better than the photography student that did their engagement shoot.

The question is, do you want to consistently live up to the expectations of the bride, groom, and inlaws? Or do you want to live up to the expectations of seasoned photographers so that you can improve your craft? I would suggest the latter.

Of course I want the latter Tyler, I want to become a better photographer. If I didn't want to do better I would not have put my self out here like this.

You received a lot of feedback here, some rather blunt. Kudos for not getting offended. Now, extract some utility from this experience and improve you skills. Let's end this thread on a high note for a change.

 

[ecphoto]

I offered to do their wedding free because said student was going to charge a lot for worse results than mine.

I know you are generous and helpful, Ernesto, but you need to be paid for this. As you said, the other photog was going to do much worse.

Well I did it for free because they are broke and I know how that goes, my wife and I are newly weds as well. I was compelled to do it when I saw how bad their engagement pictures turned out lol, not that I have much room to talk.