wedding question

[The_Traveler]

It's all well and good to make this plain at the beginning, and everyone will say that they understand and are willing to accept the risk. It tends to change when the photographs come out looking like crap and reality sets in.

I'm interested to know where this mindset comes from; the one that says unless someone is a professional they're incapable of taking quality photographs.

I've shot one wedding in my life, and I don't plan on shooting any more, simply because I'm not a "wedding photographer". But the reality is that the results I presented to the bride and groom easily rivaled anything they'd have gotten from a $5,000.00 "professional", and the bride and groom couldn't have been happier.

To the OP I say "go for it". First, it's a gig. Second, it's not your job to convince them to hire someone else who, perhaps, they may not have the budget for. Lastly, if you're already a proficient photographer, odds are the bride and groom will be very happy with what you provide...

One anecdote is not evidence when we can see lots and lots of examples that it doesn't work out that well all the time.

Yes, they may turn out 'O.K.' but is that what they are paying for?

And of course no one has mentioned backup equipment, business license, liability insurance or potential replacement (if you get sick or sick, etc)

Your equipment may work in ideal situations but if the situations are less than ideal you will be just at or outside the envelope.

The most important evidence that you aren't ready to do this alone is the fact that you don't know enough about your equipment or the circumstances to know yourself.

I shoot FF and have Nikon gold ring lenses.
I have backups for every piece of equipment I have.
I have light modifiers of all sorts.
I've shot tens of thousands of frames and am pretty good with all the post-processing tools
I wouldn't take money to shoot a wedding as first photographer because my ethical responsibility is to deliver great photos under whatever circumstances exist - and I can't be certain I can do that.

 

[Patrice]

I can see Steve's point. You don't have to be a professional wedding photographer to do a good job photographing a wedding. Steve also qualifies his remark with, "...if you're already a proficient photographer,.." The problem here is that the OP is asking;"I

am just curious if you think that will be enough." That does not indicate proficiency.

There are numerous threads on this forum dealing with this topic. The OP only needs to do a simple search to uncover a wealth of opinions and advice, some of which are very helpful, others not so much. It seems the OP has not done much research on this topic, had he done so he could have come here with more pointed questions demonstrating a want for refinement in technique or some advice on a solution to a specific problem. As it stands this thread is going to turn into another marathon of acerbic posts likely to be divisive to the forum and un-encouraging to the OP.​

 

[LouR]

It always makes my head spin when couples planning a wedding will generally go all out for things like flowers, venue and attire, but then hire someone to record the most important day of their lives who doesn't know if what he or she has can take the photos.
I was hired by a couple (for whom this was their second marriage each) by them calling the school I went to looking for a student to shoot their reception. I had a little Minolta Z2 and a tripod, charged them $50 an hour and shot some pretty decent images for 3 hours. They then wanted posed group shots with various people. I sent them 6 CDs of printable (to 11x14) images and they refused to pay for them. Their reason? They tried to print the photos at home and didn't know how to open TIFFs. I sent them nice examples with the word SAMPLE over their faces. Never heard back.
Never ever again will I say yes to something as important and stressful as a wedding. Just my 2c.

 

[imagemaker46]

After thinking about this a little bit, does anyone really care if the op or anyone else screws up a wedding shoot. This is only going to affect 3 people, the wedding couple that made the choice based on what exactly? and the photographer that managed to get the shoot in the first place. That's it, the answer to the op's question should be a simple "yes" I was sarcastic in my first comments, but really who cares?

This thread will go on for days, and at some point it will roll around to another unrelated thread on who knows what, the Op will look at a few of the responses and will simply go off to book more weddings. It does not matter what anyone on here says, if someone is determined enough to take some pictures, they will read between the lines, and find the words they want to see

 

[pixmedic]

After thinking about this a little bit, does anyone really care if the op or anyone else screws up a wedding shoot. This is only going to affect 3 people, the wedding couple that made the choice based on what exactly? and the photographer that managed to get the shoot in the first place. That's it, the answer to the op's question should be a simple "yes" I was sarcastic in my first comments, but really who cares?

This thread will go on for days, and at some point it will roll around to another unrelated thread on who knows what, the Op will look at a few of the responses and will simply go off to book more weddings. It does not matter what anyone on here says, if someone is determined enough to take some pictures, they will read between the lines, and find the words they want to see

Going by that reasoning, noone would get any question answered here at all.

 

[imagemaker46]

After thinking about this a little bit, does anyone really care if the op or anyone else screws up a wedding shoot. This is only going to affect 3 people, the wedding couple that made the choice based on what exactly? and the photographer that managed to get the shoot in the first place. That's it, the answer to the op's question should be a simple "yes" I was sarcastic in my first comments, but really who cares?

This thread will go on for days, and at some point it will roll around to another unrelated thread on who knows what, the Op will look at a few of the responses and will simply go off to book more weddings. It does not matter what anyone on here says, if someone is determined enough to take some pictures, they will read between the lines, and find the words they want to see

Going by that reasoning, noone would get any question answered here at all.

This is quite true.

 

[tirediron]

After thinking about this a little bit, does anyone really care if the op or anyone else screws up a wedding shoot. This is only going to affect 3 people, the wedding couple that made the choice based on what exactly? and the photographer that managed to get the shoot in the first place. That's it, the answer to the op's question should be a simple "yes" I was sarcastic in my first comments, but really who cares?

This thread will go on for days, and at some point it will roll around to another unrelated thread on who knows what, the Op will look at a few of the responses and will simply go off to book more weddings. It does not matter what anyone on here says, if someone is determined enough to take some pictures, they will read between the lines, and find the words they want to see

True, but you forgot the part where the experienced people recommending caution are blasted by the "How's he supposed to learn if he doesn't do?" crowd!

 

[Steve5D]

I believe in my post i asked the OP what kind of photography experience he had. Still waiting to see the answer. Im not saying he CANT do it, but depending on conditions, he is already handicapped a bit by his equipment which can only be made up for with experience. If he has the experience, then fine. If not... would you still recommend he do it?

Sure.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has experience as a photographer. I'm walking proof that one need not to have experience as a wedding photographer to successfully shoot a wedding...

 

[Buckster]

Just reflecting a little due to the subject...

Nearly 44 years ago now, when I was 10 years old, I first got interested in photography when I saw the magic of a neighbor's TLR camera. I immediately took my meager allowance and paper route money and bought my first cheap camera. By age 18, I'd read everything in the local library on photography that they had, plus books on composition, art, and other associated subjects, had taken all the photos my limited funds would allow given the cost of film and developing, and bought my first SLR, a used Nikon F.

Nearly 36 years of continued learning and practice and gear acquisitions later (I'll be 54 in 2 months), I consider myself fairly competent when it comes to photography knowledge and experience. Over those many years, I've explored many genres, styles and techniques, learned much along the way, and continue to do so. It has been a lifelong interest, love and passion for me.

I've also turned down literally dozens of requests to shoot weddings over that same period. I've never shot one, and have no intention of shooting one. It's where I personally draw the line for myself. I simply tell them that I appreciate the offer, but that wedding photography is a very specialized kind of work, and I'm not a wedding photographer, so I must decline. To me, it's just that simple.

I draw that line for myself because I have no actual experience with that genre and haven't sought out the necessary experience through being assistant/second shooter to one who actually has the experience, which I wholeheartedly believe it takes. I think wedding photography is one of the few unforgiving "get it right the first time - there's no second chance" situations one can have with a camera, and I'm not willing to take any chances with that singularly special day for any couple looking to document it in a way that leaves no photographic regrets.

I honestly think I could pull it off, but since I can't guarantee it, no couple will ever be my guinea pigs to find out.

But that's just my take on it...

 

[pixmedic]

I believe in my post i asked the OP what kind of photography experience he had. Still waiting to see the answer. Im not saying he CANT do it, but depending on conditions, he is already handicapped a bit by his equipment which can only be made up for with experience. If he has the experience, then fine. If not... would you still recommend he do it?

Sure.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has experience as a photographer. I'm walking proof that one need not to have experience as a wedding photographer to successfully shoot a wedding...

your a ringer though...you can show that you can produce quality work. if the OP can as well, then I agree with you. if not...I kinda think its irresponsible to give someone my blessing to do a job I dont think they are capable of doing well. my other reasons were questions of legality. i dont personally think i could tell someone to take a paying job if they were not set up to, and willing to, pay their taxes on that income. nor do I think its responsible of people to tell someone to take a paying job that isnt insured in case they are involved in an accident while working.

its just an opinion. and opinions are like...well, you know.

 

[Steve5D]

I can see Steve's point. You don't have to be a professional wedding photographer to do a good job photographing a wedding. Steve also qualifies his remark with, "...if you're already a proficient photographer,.." The problem here is that the OP is asking;"I

am just curious if you think that will be enough." That does not indicate proficiency.​

It doesn't indicate proficiency as a wedding photographer.

Before I shot my one wedding, I sought advice, and ended up renting a lens because what I had, on a crop-body, wasn't wide enough. I'd never shot one, so I didn't know what was appropriate. That, in no way, says that I was not a proficient photographer...

There are numerous threads on this forum dealing with this topic. The OP only needs to do a simple search to uncover a wealth of opinions and advice, some of which are very helpful, others not so much. It seems the OP has not done much research on this topic, had he done so he could have come here with more pointed questions demonstrating a want for refinement in technique or some advice on a solution to a specific problem. As it stands this thread is going to turn into another marathon of acerbic posts likely to be divisive to the forum and un-encouraging to the OP.

Of course, this could also be the beginning of the OP's research. Just because you would research it differently means nothing...

 

[pixmedic]

Just reflecting a little due to the subject...

Nearly 44 years ago now, when I was 10 years old, I first got interested in photography when I saw the magic of a neighbor's TLR camera. I immediately took my meager allowance and paper route money and bought my first cheap camera. By age 18, I'd read everything in the local library on photography that they had, plus books on composition, art, and other associated subjects, had taken all the photos my limited funds would allow given the cost of film and developing, and bought my first SLR, a used Nikon F.

Nearly 36 years of continued learning and practice and gear acquisitions later (I'll be 54 in 2 months), I consider myself fairly competent when it comes to photography knowledge and experience. Over those many years, I've explored many genres, styles and techniques, learned much along the way, and continue to do so. It has been a lifelong interest, love and passion for me.

I've also turned down literally dozens of requests to shoot weddings over that same period. I've never shot one, and have no intention of shooting one. It's where I personally draw the line for myself. I simply tell them that I appreciate the offer, but that wedding photography is a very specialized kind of work, and I'm not a wedding photographer, so I must decline. To me, it's just that simple.

I draw that line for myself because I have no actual experience with that genre and haven't sought out the necessary experience through being assistant/second shooter to one who actually has the experience, which I wholeheartedly believe it takes. I think wedding photography is one of the few unforgiving "get it right the first time - there's no second chance" situations one can have with a camera, and I'm not willing to take any chances with that singularly special day for any couple looking to document it in a way that leaves no photographic regrets.

I honestly think I could pull it off, but since I can't guarantee it, no couple will ever be my guinea pigs to find out.

But that's just my take on it...

yours is a totally different situation though. we KNOW you are a good photographer, and we KNOW you can put out quality work. you might not take wedding work as a personal preference, but it isnt due to a lack of photographic ability. you can say you cant "guarantee" you could pull it off, but I think you are selling your abilities short on that one. me and the wife would have NO problems letting you photograph our wedding if we got renewals done.

 

[Steve5D]

your a ringer though...you can show that you can produce quality work.

But I'm not a ringer, I'm a photographer...

if the OP can as well, then I agree with you. if not...I kinda think its irresponsible to give someone my blessing to do a job I dont think they are capable of doing well.

When I shot my one wedding, I was hired based on the quality of my landscape and concert photography. It's awfully presumptious of you to think the OP even wants your blessing, especially since he hasn't sought it out. He asked a question regarding equipment.

Look at it another way: I want to paint a room pink. I have a can of red paint and a can of white paint. Will that be enough?

Well, of course, it would be. Whether or not I've ever actually painted a room, or even mixed paint, isn't pertinent to the question...

my other reasons were questions of legality. i dont personally think i could tell someone to take a paying job if they were not set up to, and willing to, pay their taxes on that income. nor do I think its responsible of people to tell someone to take a paying job that isnt insured in case they are involved in an accident while working.

When I shot my wedding, I didn't have insurance, we didn't have a contract, and I didn't pay taxes. I was paid in cash that went straight into my pocket.

And it all went swimmingly.

Call it anecdotal, but I truly believe that we hear about 50 horror stories to every success, yet I truly believe the successes outnumber the horror stories...

 

[Designer]

I'm not sure where this observation fits within this argument, perhaps not at all, but I've see plenty of examples of not-very-good wedding photography lately, some by posters who claim to be "professional" wedding photographers.

The technicalities aside, which I hope most can agree is something than can be learned, is the pure stress factor of orchestrating the wedding photography. The photographer, experienced or not, has to be in certain places at certain times, with the chosen equipment (right or wrong), direct several people, whom he or she does not know, monitor the success (or failure) of the setup, change setups as required, try to direct people who have had way too much fun to concentrate, all while trying to get a certain amount of photography done in a set amount of time.

That is a tremendous amount of stress, regardless of the quality of outcome.

And then, this may be a wedding in which there is no money budgeted for pictures. I've attended some weddings like that. The poor but happy couple was simply relying on their friends to give them copies of snapshots.

So if this wedding is of the "cold sandwiches and punch" caliber, then even poor photos will be better than what was expected.

 

[Ballistics]

Just reflecting a little due to the subject...

Nearly 44 years ago now, when I was 10 years old, I first got interested in photography when I saw the magic of a neighbor's TLR camera. I immediately took my meager allowance and paper route money and bought my first cheap camera. By age 18, I'd read everything in the local library on photography that they had, plus books on composition, art, and other associated subjects, had taken all the photos my limited funds would allow given the cost of film and developing, and bought my first SLR, a used Nikon F.

Nearly 36 years of continued learning and practice and gear acquisitions later (I'll be 54 in 2 months), I consider myself fairly competent when it comes to photography knowledge and experience. Over those many years, I've explored many genres, styles and techniques, learned much along the way, and continue to do so. It has been a lifelong interest, love and passion for me.

I've also turned down literally dozens of requests to shoot weddings over that same period. I've never shot one, and have no intention of shooting one. It's where I personally draw the line for myself. I simply tell them that I appreciate the offer, but that wedding photography is a very specialized kind of work, and I'm not a wedding photographer, so I must decline. To me, it's just that simple.

I draw that line for myself because I have no actual experience with that genre and haven't sought out the necessary experience through being assistant/second shooter to one who actually has the experience, which I wholeheartedly believe it takes. I think wedding photography is one of the few unforgiving "get it right the first time - there's no second chance" situations one can have with a camera, and I'm not willing to take any chances with that singularly special day for any couple looking to document it in a way that leaves no photographic regrets.

I honestly think I could pull it off, but since I can't guarantee it, no couple will ever be my guinea pigs to find out.

But that's just my take on it...

yours is a totally different situation though. we KNOW you are a good photographer, and we KNOW you can put out quality work. you might not take wedding work as a personal preference, but it isnt due to a lack of photographic ability. you can say you cant "guarantee" you could pull it off, but I think you are selling your abilities short on that one. me and the wife would have NO problems letting you photograph our wedding if we got renewals done.

Knowing the quality of work hasn't stopped people from saying "Don't do it!". While I do agree that there are some that have genuine intentions and are actually looking out - the majority of the resistance are people who've never shot a wedding and don't really care if the OP does it or not. People just rather hop on popular band wagons of negativity, vs support the OP. Which is why C+C threads are 6 or 7 posts long, while negative threads go on for dozens of posts. Hell, even I recently made a thread like this and was met with the same kind of resistance. Some of the same people in this thread posted in mine, the majority were respectable of course.