Just sounding off...

rpcrowe

I have been retired and haven't shot a wedding in many years. However there seems to be two types of coverage lately...

The more standard and mundane coverage and the very creative avant-guarde coverage. While many photgraphers seem to prefer the artsy-craftsy coverage, it seems like the mothers of the bride often prefer a more convential type of coverage...

It would seem that if I were shooting weddings again, I would get a good handle on what the holder of the wedding purse strings wanted and either deliver that type of image or forego the gig...

Moogle Pepper

ok...

nicoleshilliday

I personally do both....just sayin

mmmatt

nicoleshilliday wrote: »

I personally do both....just sayin

Keep in mind we are posting what will be interesting to other photographers on this forum, so you see less of the more traditional and mundane stuff than our (at least my) customers see. I try to make everyone happy, but at the end of the day I am doing what I do and it is representative of my port with enough new ideas to keep things interesting for me and special for my customers.

heatherfeather

Also keep in mind that those boring photos DO sell. I almost always sell prints of those to grandma. The bride and groom? They usually want the creative pretty stuff.

Matthew Saville

You bring up a REALLY good point actually, even though most of the community here is level-headed enough to agree with you without batting an eye.

The bottom line is that there are PLENTY of photographers out there who screw up bigtime because they were never "classically trained" in portraiture, or lighting, so they spend 100% of their time snapping quick candids and un-posed "natural" portraits. I'm sorry but shooting at f/1.2 and getting someone to laugh is NOT very difficult, let alone creative in a timeless way. Sure, you get a few great shots, but the point of the OP is that you're barely scratching the surface with such a narrow-minded style.

For this very reason, I HIGHLY encourage aspiring photographers to actually take a class in formal portraiture. It might sound boring as heck, but read up on some of the traditional, foundation-building aspects that go into a compelling portrait.

The next time someone says "rules are meant to be broken", I'm going to smack them upside the head if they didn't actually bother to LEARN THE RULES in the first place! You can't break the rules if you have no idea what those rules are!

So anyways, all I'm saying is that it's a really good idea to build a foundation, for so many reasons, including this one. Build a solid foundation in traditional photography, so that you can do both- pursue your artistic instinct, and deliver a well-rounded product that satisfied everyone.

One of my favorite examples of this is Jeff Ascough, a UK wedding photographer. Glancing at his website, all you see is a very specific style of wedding photojournalism. Does that mean that's all he shoots? No, of course not. But I've interacted with him a couple times personally inside the School, and in fact he actually used to be a commercial / editorial photographer for a long time, so his foundation is deeply rooted in "classical" portraiture photography...


Keep in mind, of course, that I'm not just randomly ranting on everyone out there who lacks experience. There are plenty of beginners and hobbyists out there who haven't studied traditional portraiture, but they're doing just fine learning things on their own and getting really good. And there are plenty of experienced professionals who ONLY shoot a certain style, take it or leave it. I'm only trying to warn anyone who is thinking of calling themselves a professional, and trying to service clients with little experience or training. It's risky. And BTW, I'm only harsh with people if I've been there myself, and made those same mistakes. I like to help people avoid the risks and pitfalls I found along my own path... ;-)


=Matt=

nicoleshilliday

heatherfeather wrote: »

Also keep in mind that those boring photos DO sell. I almost always sell prints of those to grandma. The bride and groom? They usually want the creative pretty stuff.

exactly! I sell more boring photos then artistic ones most of the time. I once had a parent pick all of the formal family photos for their album.... but in the end, they are the client and the ones who pay my bills

smurfy

For this very reason, I HIGHLY encourage aspiring photographers to actually take a class in formal portraiture. It might sound boring as heck, but read up on some of the traditional, foundation-building aspects that go into a compelling portrait.

The next time someone says "rules are meant to be broken", I'm going to smack them upside the head if they didn't actually bother to LEARN THE RULES in the first place! You can't break the rules if you have no idea what those rules are!

Couldn't agree with Matt's words more. I'm so tired of the mediocre or worse work that is borderline insulting to artists of the past, be they painters or photographers, being justified with that line.

The rules were not made to be broken. That is an expression often used by those too lazy to learn the rules in the first place. If someone does break the rules and gets away with it, they have usually been producing great, rule-obeying work for a long time before they are able to pull off re- inventing the wheel, photographically speaking.

It can be done, as Jonas Peterson and a few others prove. But it's about as rare as finding a natural pearl on a beach full of oysters.

nicoleshilliday

i like to break the rules...but not with every photo so there for rules are made to be broken! Just kidding

Shima

Breaking the rules for the artistic album 2 page spread layouts and extra large canvas prints etc is one thing, but it's so important to not to forget to prioritize all the standard formals and candids of random guests... when guests by photos it's often of these formals and the random candids or table shots I captured of them.

Kinkajou

I think that you can't overlook the fact that what you're selling at the end of the day is YOU... so, yes, be accommodating, but just don't give up what YOU WANT to shoot.

FedererPhoto

Talking prints only...
1) in terms of number of prints, I sell more of the formals (even though I rarely take more than 5-7 per wedding).
2) in terms of dollar value, I sell WAY more of the creative types.

This is because when someone buys a line-em-up formal they buy a 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 lustre print... But when someone buys a cool piece of art to hang on their wall... they drop a ton of money to get something really really cool.

This might not sell to grandma, but it'll net me nearly a grand when they buy a 45x30 of it to hang in their new house. [IMAGE REMOVED]

I'd have to sell a lot of 4x6 formals to break even.


That said -- the problem I have with the original post is that it assumes only the one with the purse strings purchases the photos. Following posts assumed the only profit from a wedding is the prints sold afterward.

It's quite clear that in today's day and age, the bride and groom select the photographer. If daddy pays, you might need to have your online portfolio pass his muster... but only after the B&G have decided to go with you. In the end, you need to excite the B&G with your personalty, brand, and photographs... they will take care of 'selling' you to the holder of the purse.

Additionally, it's those artistic shots that excite the next bride and groom -- and the commission is where the real money happens... not the $50 print order here, or the $300 print order there. Shooting 'for the prints' is a mindset whose time passed about a decade ago. I'd gladly end up with a MoB who wishes we'd done a few more formals* in exchange for an entire social circle of the brides friends who can't get over how amazing her wedding photos are.


*she wishes that day-of, but then gets the final, beautiful, product and is completely satisfied. I'm not saying don't please the MoB... I do everything I can to make the parents happy. I'm just saying that from a purely financial perspective, she just needs to be happy enough not to ruin it for the Bride. ... the people you need to please are the B&G - so they'll show their family and friends with pumped up pride... and then those people see your work and hire you to do the same. No one on facebook ever got so excited about a well done altar return that they 'friended' the photographer "for when I get engaged".

Moogle Pepper

FedererPhoto wrote: »

That said -- the problem I have with the original post is that it assumes only the one with the purse strings purchases the photos. Following posts assumed the only profit from a wedding is the prints sold afterward.

It's quite clear that in today's day and age, the bride and groom select the photographer. If daddy pays, you might need to have your online portfolio pass his muster... but only after the B&G have decided to go with you. In the end, you need to excite the B&G with your personalty, brand, and photographs... they will take care of 'selling' you to the holder of the purse.

Additionally, it's those artistic shots that excite the next bride and groom -- and the commission is where the real money happens... not the $50 print order here, or the $300 print order there. Shooting 'for the prints' is a mindset whose time passed about a decade ago. I'd gladly end up with a MoB who wishes we'd done a few more formals* in exchange for an entire social circle of the brides friends who can't get over how amazing her wedding photos are.


*she wishes that day-of, but then gets the final, beautiful, product and is completely satisfied. I'm not saying don't please the MoB... I do everything I can to make the parents happy. I'm just saying that from a purely financial perspective, she just needs to be happy enough not to ruin it for the Bride. ... the people you need to please are the B&G - so they'll show their family and friends with pumped up pride... and then those people see your work and hire you to do the same. No one on facebook ever got so excited about a well done altar return that they 'friended' the photographer "for when I get engaged".

Exactly.

mmmatt