What's Wrong With Wedding Photography (The Iceland Problem)

[rexbobcat]

Stirring the Pot!

The assertions in this blog post aren't exactly anything new, but it was so eloquently laid out that I thought I'd share it.

What’s wrong with wedding photography? (aka The Iceland Problem) | Ground Glass

 

[photoguy99]

I have thought briefly about how I'd shoot a wedding. It goes like this:

We'll talk and hang out a bit, get to know one another, before the day. Maybe kick around some ideas.

On the day I'll show up with... Something. Could be anything.

I may or may not boss you around. If I brought a pinhole expect to be standing still a lot. But maybe I won't say a word. Depends on my concept.

Three months later or so I will offer you between zero and ten prints, no larger than 11x14. Probably black and white. $1000 each. Note that zero prints is an option. You pay nothing. But you also get nothing. The concept didn't work out. Sorry.

You think I could sell that?

Wedding photography is a commodity for excellent reasons. People don't want novelty for their wedding photos.

 

[gsgary]

What do they want the same old crappy poses, when I look at wedding photos on here they look mostly the same and bore me senseless, if I can find a link to this photographer that has gone back to film and is shooting a film called cinestill, I have turned down about 6 weddings this year from people wanting their wedding shot on b+w film

 

[The_Traveler]

when I look at JUST ABOUT ANY FORUMS HERE (edits mine, ll) on here they look mostly the same and bore me senseless,

I liked this

But for all that, no matter how stunning and how impressive, the question isn’t about how well you take the picture. The prettiness may make it all go down a hell of a lot easier, but it will never be a replacement for what really matters: having something to say.

Yes, pictures have improved. But as the haze lifts and the talent grows, what becomes clear is that the plague of the wedding industry isn’t its sheer crappiness. We’re finally starting to steer clear of that. It’s the pervasive sameness that has defined this industry from the start. Where craft is concerned, crappiness and sameness are worlds apart. But insofar as the art, heart, and soul of the medium goes, they remain one and the same.

And that goes for just about any area in photography.
I rarely see pictures here that aren't a copy of something seen before.
Yes, everything has been done, but the intent of the photographer and his or her idea should be the defining element that makes the old thing new.
If the photographer has nothing to say, then the pictures will be empty.

 

[Braineack]

The assertions in this blog post aren't exactly anything new, but it was so eloquently laid out that I thought I'd share it.

were they?

 

[bribrius]

I think the only question would be I come up with... since when is a photographer such a ego maniac they think shooting a wedding is about them or what they have to say or their vision.
It is about the wedding, duh.
It doesn't matter if it looks like other wedding shots. The primary purpose is RECORD not art. Go pick up some pastels and spare you clients.
Rest of it I agree with. Just real tired of this personal spin on doing commercial work where the photographers personal issues seem to be the front and center rather than the actual job.

I liked the end of it, but I really couldn't equate that to shooting a wedding at all. We have enough photographers stuck on themselves...

 

[rexbobcat]

The assertions in this blog post aren't exactly anything new, but it was so eloquently laid out that I thought I'd share it.

were they?

Yes

 

[RocketCowboy]

I think the only question would be I come up with... since when is a photographer such a ego maniac they think shooting a wedding is about them or what they have to say or their vision.
It is about the wedding, duh.
It doesn't matter if it looks like other wedding shots. The primary purpose is RECORD not art. Go pick up some pastels and spare you clients.
Rest of it I agree with. Just real tired of this personal spin on doing commercial work where the photographers personal issues seem to be the front and center rather than the actual job.

Agreed! Unless the couple is looking for an artistic spin on their images, but that would be discussed up front before the photog is hired.

 

[Overread]

It's important to remember that most customers don't want something new, innovative and different. They want the same things that they saw on your website/portfolio done for them.

In addition its nearly always the case that if you take someone who views wedding photos in a larger quantity over a long period of time it becomes harder and harder to please them because its not just that every shot "has been done" its that they've "Seen every shot be done" and might even have done those shots themselves.

They become almost a nightmare client requiring fresh, new, different ideas all the time. A very different client to the average wedding client who is likely only exposed to small snippets of wedding shots and might well have seen most of them in the period up to booking the photographer.



Certainly photographers should always aim to increase their skills and broaden their horizons as much as possible; but if they are working then they've still got to do their bread and butter.

 

[rexbobcat]

I think the only question would be I come up with... since when is a photographer such a ego maniac they think shooting a wedding is about them or what they have to say or their vision.
It is about the wedding, duh.
It doesn't matter if it looks like other wedding shots. The primary purpose is RECORD not art. Go pick up some pastels and spare you clients.
Rest of it I agree with. Just real tired of this personal spin on doing commercial work where the photographers personal issues seem to be the front and center rather than the actual job.

I liked the end of it, but I really couldn't equate that to shooting a wedding at all. We have enough photographers stuck on themselves...

That's the problem he's talking about. The photographers are already stuck on themselves (not all of them of course, but many that show up on wedding blogs and such).

That's why we have wedding photos where the couple is the smallest thing in the composition.

Why would the couple want a photo with a ton of seemingly pointless negative space?

Obviously because it'll get the photographer lots of "likes" on Facebook.

Photographers are already an egotistical bunch, which is why all these wedding photographers seem to actively striving to take the exact same photos.

It's kind of like those "surreal" photographers on Flickr. They're all painfully and glaringly derivative of each other, but aren't humble enough to admit it.

 

[ronlane]

What's wrong with wedding photography? Initial reaction would be nothing.

It's not you (wedding photography), it's me.......

 

[pixmedic]

What do they want the same old crappy poses, when I look at wedding photos on here they look mostly the same and bore me senseless, if I can find a link to this photographer that has gone back to film and is shooting a film called cinestill, I have turned down about 6 weddings this year from people wanting their wedding shot on b+w film

so....
they want the same old crappy poses, just on B&W Film?
gotcha.

I totally feel ya man..
i have that exact same feeling every time i look through the film section here.
same old, same old.

 

[gsgary]

I wouldn't shot a wedding like you see on here

 

[pixmedic]

I will admit, and painfully so, that I have always harbored a bit of jealousy towards people that had a knack for shooting and developing their own film. I did shoot a bit of film many many years ago, but it was always sent to the lab for developing.
Every so not-very-often-at-all, I have a slight tingling urge to shoot a little film again, but then I go to the doctor and get some antibiotics and it clears right up.
I rarely shoot for pleasure. Its almost entirely business for us. If im not getting paid, (or sometimes helping out a friend) I don't pick up the camera.

I think there's a niche for pretty much any type of photography you can imagine. The hardest part is finding that target audience, and getting them to part with their money. I think you see a lot of the same "type" of shots done because thats what people typically expect to see, and for a large portion of people, NOT seeing those types of shots in their wedding photos would equal a disaster.
I could go on with my usual rant about how i think a shooting "style" is just a pretentious buzzword....but its probably not applicable to this particular discussion.

 

[gsgary]

I'm just going in the darkroom to make a print