My two cents on wedding photography....

[MRCPhoto]

I see that wedding photography can be quite the subject here and rightly so. It can be a rewarding experiance. I've been shooting weddings (Traditional film) for 10 years and I love it....it does get to be tedious and old sometimes though. One must continue to push themselves to new levels and continue to educate themselves to be sucessful (ie my digital questions).
I've taken a few quick looks at previous posts regarding wedding photography and here is my 2 cents (this means strictly my opinion and in no way is ment to flame or tick anyone off).

Other photographers at formal sittings (before or after ceremony).
To me that is a big no no...it takes up more time than most brides and grooms have. I spend all that time posing and working with the bridal party which can be very time consuming and in some cases almost overwhelming for certain bridal party members. For someone to interfer with the session, jump in the shot...even by accident, cause light interferance, etc is unacceptable as a pro. If we have to pause and wait for others to get their shots in before going on, we'd run into the ceremony or the reception time. The bride and groom will not get the shots that they have planned and discussed with me prior to the session. It is written into my contract that I am the only photographer shooting my formal shots. If someone wants the bride or groom or whoever to go over to the side and take a shot, fine, I even encourage it, but don't interfer with my work. I'm there for the bride and groom specifically, no one else.

If you've never done it (or have little experiance) don't say you can do it. Churches are usually filled with horrible lighting, high hight ceilings, in some cases, hidious colors (GOD knows!), busy backgrounds, etc. The last thing you want is your sister or friend ticked off at you because you did not get what she wanted. I've seen some good relationships torn completely apart by situations like that. I know a bride who actually sued her friend because she did not get what she wanted. Also, these shoot your own event things that pop up here and there...you order a couple of fliers on how to pose people and give you some ideas regarding it, don't do it! It takes experiance, equipment, knowledge, lighting, EXPERIANCE!!!!!!! The perfect wedding can be ruined for a bride if the images aren't awesome!

Costs....
Shooting a wedding costs cash. Yes, you can have the best camera in the world...but what about if the bride wants collages, albums, parents albums, cards, 20 X24 or bigger enlargements, etc. I shudder to think what I paid for my lighting equipment...infact, I hid the receipt so that I wouldn't look at the dollar amount! Oh yes, don't forget your backup equipment...lighting, cameras, props, etc.

Wow...
I'm out of air!
LOL I just want everyone to know what you're getting into.
Hope I'm at least some sort of help.
Meesha

[Jmurman]

Thanks for your input. I am interested in getting into wedding photography. I do know that it will take time and learning.

What can a "newbie" do to learn about this field?

[DocFrankenstein]

Meesha as in meesha kosolapii? :wink:

[MRCPhoto]

as learning, study magazines and the way the light falls. Take your camera inside your church (with subjects) and shoot test shots. Study them, improve them, work with them. MEMORIZE your manuals! Experiment with lights! Keep open to new ideas.
AND if you do contact a wedding, make sure you know what you're doing and protect yourself. Explain that you're new and the results may not be what they want. You need to be able to look at a lighting situation and KNOW what you're to do to do it right.
Research contracts for yourself. Poses, traditional, JP, contemporary, candid, etc. Know your legal obligations concerning providing such services to others.
Meesha

[DaveG]

[quote]Other photographers at formal sittings (before or after ceremony).
To me that is a big no no...it takes up more time than most brides and grooms have. I spend all that time posing and working with the bridal party which can be very time consuming and in some cases almost overwhelming for certain bridal party members. For someone to interfer with the session, jump in the shot...even by accident, cause light interferance, etc is unacceptable as a pro.

That's great if you can do it. But the thing I strive for at a wedding is to solve problems rather than create them. What if granny insists on taking a picture? Are you going to yell at her? Even if your contract specified that you were the only shooter not everyone at the wedding knows this and cares less. My solution is to explain to the guests that they should wait while I shoot the group poses and then I'll let them fill their boots.

It is written into my contract that I am the only photographer shooting my formal shots. If someone wants the bride or groom or whoever to go over to the side and take a shot, fine, I even encourage it, but don't interfer with my work. I'm there for the bride and groom specifically, no one else.

Like I say, good if you can, but the bride and groom want a) their photos to be great and b) someone they hired to NOT offend their guests. Those two goals are mutually exclusive so I try to explain to the bride and groom WAY ahead of time why their photos will be so much better if they "invite" their guests to go to the reception in order leave us in the park alone for the formals. Then THEY do it. Try saying, "Without it costing you a penny extra, if there's no one in the park but us, then your shots will be 100% better."

If you've never done it (or have little experiance) don't say you can do it... ...I've seen some good relationships torn completely apart by situations like that. I know a bride who actually sued her friend because she did not get what she wanted.

I think that anyone who is thinking about shooting weddings had better be a very experienced photographer and should assist a pro with a few of their weddings if at all possible. I am continually angered by the guy who buys a digital camera (almost always a dRebel) on Tuesday and wants to pay for it by shooting a wedding on Saturday.

I did a wedding presentaion about a year ago where the bride's buddy had gotten married the year before. It was one of those "300 print weddings for $300" and they sucked. And she took it out on me - and I had nothing to do with it. She was so rude that I was very close to telling her to go ye forth and mulitply, but as she was also about 8 1/2 months pregnant, I held off. I do wish that I had spoken to that issue more forcibly though.

But I also think that shooting friend and family weddings IS the next step. That "friend" who sued her friend is a crock since you can't breach a gratuitous contract. You lay it all out and the bride either accepts or doesn't. In a lot of these cases it's not that the bride isn't hiring an experienced photographer or the rookie; it's that they hire the rookie or no one. But those expectations should be addressed way ahead of time by the photographer, and they should be very conservative with their "resume".

I just shot my first digtial wedding. I've done about 150 with film but this was the first digitally. And of course I charged the bride nothing. My son and her's are friends and although I didn't know them all that well it was more than being picked out of the phone book. But I made it CLEAR that this was experimental and that I wanted NO money. That makes me litigation proof, just in case, and off I went. Now I have that first DSLR wedding under my belt and I'll have proofs to prove it to other B&G's, so I think that we both won.

[MRCPhoto]

something every professional has. A contract provides rules for everyone to follow. My couple read each item and both initial behind it, accepting it. If they do not like my contract, they are welcome to go to another photographer and I will even make recommendations if they would like. I know how I work and I will stick with it! I have never had a complaint about my contract and I throughly explain the reason why the no other photographer while I'm doing my formal work. I know that there is always someone sneaking a shot here and there and that's fine because in order to sneak it, they have to be out of my way and can't interfer. The bride and groom speak to their families prior to the session and there is no issue. No one says they can't set up their own little thing after I'm done, that's fine, but when I am specifically working with a subject, I want no interferance.
We run into a lot of "last minute "I bought a new camera even though I've never shot before" people who want to run with it. I like their enthusiasm, but those individuals need to know that they need to do their thing on their own time, not mine. The bride and groom are paying me for the time I'm there.
As far as ticked off brides and broken friendships, it may be a crock, but it happens. Normally, when I have a friend getting married, I refuse to shoot the wedding and give them a great referance instead because I want to be a guest and throughly enjoy their day, not be an employee. I've done it before and found that I didn't get to be a guest at all, I didn't get to celebrate at all, I worked my a$$ off for no reward for my time (I have to be able to justify it to my business success). A person new to wedding photography, using an actual wedding as a "lesson" is going to eventually end up in disaster unfortuneatly. It may not happen right away or even after 20 weddings, but eventually, it will.
Meesha

[robertwgross]

What can a "newbie" do to learn about this field?

Once you have read and read and you can't read any more about techniques, then you find an old pro wedding photographer and offer to be his gaffer (carry the gear bags, hold light stands, etc.). Watch how the old pro works. Then offer to shoot alongside the old pro for anything he wants done. Then if you get good enough, you shoot directly alongside him and in parallel.

For instance, use digital to back up the film shooter. And of course, use Canon to back up the Nikon.

---Bob Gross---

[CanonUser]

Regarding guests who take photos...
I make sure that the B&G read and understand the "Exclusive Photographer" clause in the contract. At the signing, I explain to them the technical difficulties and time constrain we both face on the wedding day. I point out that they hire me for the quality they see in my works; And to get their money worth, they should share some of the responsibilities of providing me with a working environment, where I can give them my undivided attention and the best of my abilities. I request that they assign a person to help me gather the right people when needed for the shots and tell other photographers to refrain untill I'm done with my formal session or group shots.
When the B&G see the pros and cons, I usually get my point person. This person often does a pretty good job fencing for me and nobody gets upset in the process.
BTW, I do realize that you can't stop family members from taking snapshots and I don't intent to stop anyone from doing so. I just want to avoid uneccessary distraction during the formal shoot for good reasons.

Regards,
Alan

[Mthorpe_Davies]

something every professional has. A contract provides rules for everyone to follow.
Meesha

A contract I have never heard of a contract being required for a wedding in NZ. When my wife and I were looking for photographers for our wedding 4 months ago we never encountered a photographer that required a contract. In the end we got a pretty good deal from one of the top wedding photographers in Auckland because she wanted to experiment with digital. We got all the digital shots free and only paid for the non digital prints. The photos were excellent had they been grap we wouldn't have paid for them nor would we have accepted them. Down here we have a law which basically states if what you recieve isn't what you wanted you don't have to pay for it.

[mpoole]

where the photographer had informed the B&G that if others took pictures while he was working, he would leave, and was quite rude to a couple of guests who tried to grab some quick shots. Needless to say he wasn't too popular and wouldn't be getting any references from this couple. The problem seemed to the way he handled it. The guests were not informed of the "rules", the assistant made no attempt to block interference. All they had to do was inform people and be fair about allowing shots after he shot his formals. It's a people business, be firm but be fair.
The resulting images were great, but the meomory of the shooter's rudeness will last.

[DaveG]

something every professional has. A contract provides rules for everyone to follow.
Meesha

Down here we have a law which basically states if what you recieve isn't what you wanted you don't have to pay for it.

So you are the same type of customer that I just had. That is willing to take a chance on digital, and of course that's fine.

As for that law you referred to I would say that's why the other photographer wanted a contract so that there would be no debate later about "what you wanted". Surely a contract stipulating the planned results of the shoot would trump the vague " if what you receive isn't what you wanted you don't have to pay for it".

Contract: "I will shoot 125 shots ..."
Client: "Yes we got 125 shots but now I want 150 so 'it's not what I wanted.'"

Contract: "I will stay for six hours ..."
Client "But he only worked for six hours and that's 'not what I wanted'."

Unfortunately some people will take advantage of any situation, if there's money on the table. If I thought that it was my fault and I didn't live up to their legitimate expectations then I'd work out a refund without hesitation. But if I thought that I was being scammed then I'd offer them a FULL refund, but only on the understanding that they kept no product at all and that all of my working product, proofs, negs and so forth, would be destroyed that day, so there would be no "changing of minds". I'd rather lose the income than go through this garbage only to have the bride slink back in a week and offer to pay me then.

[Dans_D60]

something every professional has. A contract provides rules for everyone to follow.
Meesha

A contract I have never heard of a contract being required for a wedding in NZ. When my wife and I were looking for photographers for our wedding 4 months ago we never encountered a photographer that required a contract. In the end we got a pretty good deal from one of the top wedding photographers in Auckland because she wanted to experiment with digital. We got all the digital shots free and only paid for the non digital prints. The photos were excellent had they been grap we wouldn't have paid for them nor would we have accepted them. Down here we have a law which basically states if what you recieve isn't what you wanted you don't have to pay for it.

Here in the U.S. contracts are a must. People sue for just about any reason. Wedding photography is stressful and rewarding. Lately I have been moving away from making margin on prints to basic service labor rates and supply CDs (or DVD) with images. My studio retains the master copyright but the contract allows the Couple to make as many prints they want as long as it is not done for commercial use. In some cases I still provide a print service. Miller’s offers a pretty good print service especially with large (20 X30) canvas on frame prints. Our web site still promotes print packages but many times we negotiate a service only package. The contract clearly states we cannot guarantee quality of prints from other sources but in the digital world it’s becoming more popular just to supply the images.

Also, experience counts especially with difficult lighting and complex subjects. Church lighting for sure is tricky but mid day outside weddings are challenging. Direct and over exposed backgrounds are unavoidable with these mid day sessions. Couples that demand a formal (not photojournalistic) photography service require creative placement techniques.

Here are two recent weddings with mid day lighting and you can see the challenges:

http://www.your-proofs.com/perkins
http://www.your-proofs.com/cole

[CanonUser]

A contract protects BOTH the photographer and the client. The B&G know exactly the service and product they will get for the amount agreed on. The photographer has a defined set of reponsibilties to fullfill and the ability to collect the payment for the work performed. There are alot of unforeseen problems to happen even with a well written contract.

[MRCPhoto]

clients out there who would not stick to their word from the git go, there are those who aren't as honest as the rest. A contract specifies the service and product, sets appropriate boundaries (Sorry, but I don't think hanging upside down from the ceiling above the alter to get a PH shot desired by the bride is going to happen no matter how much she demands it! Safetly first of course!), agreed upon prices, etc.
There are very few professionals out there in any field of work or service that don't require a signed contract. There are just too many things that could go wrong on both sides of the signature line.
Meesha

[Malaxos1]

I just did a wedding this past Saturday and it was hot. I have allowed people to shoot after I did, but this time the heat just made for problems. The groom had his appendix out three weeks ago and you could see that he was in pain so I needed to rush along, but the family kept saying "wait, one more". What a pain in the a.. I don't think I will allow it anymore. The reason I did in the first place was because the proffesor who tuaght the wedding photography class I took said that he always allows it. He said that it has saved him a few times from being sued. He said that if you have a problem with equipment and film and that if certain, important shots were missed, you could get them from family members and all is not lost. Being that at that time I had only done 2 weddings it sounded like a reasonable thing to do. Not anyway more, it isn't worth making the B&G stand around that long, esspecially when other guests are waiting to greet them. Oh, 15 digital weddings and no probs yet...Dean

[MRCPhoto]

take you seriously, your effort seriously, and the contract seriously. If the B&G can get those poses from someone else who was just snapping your hard work up, they won't be coming back to order from you at all.
It also keeps those "Know it all" friends and relatives of the B & G who think they know more than you do about posing and lighting from getting in your way. I've actually had a very pushy aunt of the bride once tell me that I could not take a particular shot that the B & G wanted because it didn't fit into her time schedule or what she wanted. Needless to say, I told her that I was there for the B & G and not her. Sometimes, you have to be firm with those people. Luckily, they ususally respect the fact that you are there for the B&G.
Meesha

[robertwgross]

A pro wedding photographer does not need to have a "CONTRACT" signed with the B&G. That word turns a lot of people off. Instead, have an "Agreement" signed by them. By the way, that is still a contract, but it does not cause so much pain and suffering to get it signed. An agreement just sounds friendlier.

---Bob Gross---

[MRCPhoto]

That's the wonderful world of business.
Meesha

[HTP]

i make all my wedding clients pay before i come to their wedding! Photographers are always the last to get paid, but are the ones that spend the most!