Emergency Wedding Photographer...

[SoccerRef]

Question: You (a wedding photographer) are marrying the woman of your dreams and you have lined up another reputable wedding photographer to shoot your wedding. Two days before your wedding the photographer and his assistant (his wife) are in an automobile accident and you have to find a replacement on very short notice.

There are no wedding photogs available on such short notice (at least none that you would trust to do a decent job), but you have found two potential replacements, one is a very good sports photographer, and the other is a very good studio portrait photographer. Neither has any wedding experience but both are willing to give it a whirl. You can only afford to hire one, which do you hire? And Why?

(A friend and I had this discussion a few weeks ago and I was wondering what you all here on POTN would think... By the way, this actually happened to him almost 23 years ago!)

[kaitanium]

i would hire the studio dude since i think he/she would have a better understanding of good light and what that looks like. sports people dont have to create light or find it, they use whatever is there or rent those flashes in the stadium. the studio person would probably suck at PJ stuff so i would let my entire wedding know to bring their cameras and have them snap random stuff =P.

[stathunter]

Good question. I do sports/news/etc and when talking to the other photogs on assignments many others are afraid of weddings and not comfortable with them. So in my opinion I think you need someone who is used to working on the fly (sports) but you need someone like said above who understands light (studio)........... tuff choice.

[cory1848]

I would say neither... Managing a wedding takes a lot more than just being able to take a good picture. Taking the photos is the easy part. Its all the other stuff that screws things up. How can you trust someone with no experience?

[cbh76]

Sounds like one of those word problems I had back in math class. ;)

[jwilson]

I would say neither... Managing a wedding takes a lot more than just being able to take a good picture. Taking the photos is the easy part. Its all the other stuff that screws things up. How can you trust someone with no experience?


So you'd forego a photographer for your wedding? The OP was these 2 photogs were the only option, what would you do? The studio photog or the sports shooter....personally, I too would hire the studio guy and tell everyone else to bring their digicams and I would arrange for a download of all their pics onto my laptop (or other digital storage device) before they left so I could do my own PS....

[LBaldwin]

i would hire the studio dude since i think he/she would have a better understanding of good light and what that looks like. sports people dont have to create light or find it, they use whatever is there or rent those flashes in the stadium. the studio person would probably suck at PJ stuff so i would let my entire wedding know to bring their cameras and have them snap random stuff =P.

Sorry but I disagree for the exact same reason. Sports photographers are used to getting the shot right the first time. Sports photographers are used to changing lighting conditions. Sports photographers also use strobes to shoot features, of sports persons, cover art, and magazine covers such as fashion.

Brides and grooms at weddings MOVE, they are not stationary. Sports photographers understand low light situations, shallow DOF and photographer placement to get the best shots.

Studio photographer are at a real disadvantage, with just one way to light something and a fixed BG for everything. Formal poses and a limited space to shoot in as well.

But I could not imagine that either photographer would not have enough real world experience to handle the wedding...

[cory1848]

So you'd forego a photographer for your wedding? The OP was these 2 photogs were the only option, what would you do? The studio photog or the sports shooter....personally, I too would hire the studio guy and tell everyone else to bring their digicams and I would arrange for a download of all their pics onto my laptop (or other digital storage device) before they left so I could do my own PS....

He stated those two were the only ones he trusted. So not the only option.

[pennypue]

I'd hire the one with the best personality.

I think having fun at your wedding is the most important thing.
Yes, even beyond the photography. (Blasphemy, I know!)

[PeaceFire]

I'd hire the one with the best personality.

I think having fun at your wedding is the most important thing.
Yes, even beyond the photography. (Blasphemy, I know!)

This!

[AlexMoPhotography]

Course I'd hire the best personality, but assuming the only thing distinguishing the two is their type of photography, I'd have to go with sports for the reasons lbadlwin mentioned.

[Karl Johnston]

I'd hire the studio guy and make sure you got some damn nice looking formals in his studio or the studio set up. Concentrate on the majority of your package consisting of studio shots and you'll be fine.

The sports photog would likely show up with a 600 f4 and shoot you and your bride from down the street :lol:

[harroz]

studio for sure, he can pose and should have people composition nailed. sorry, but I've just looked at some commercial architectural work a sport shooter has just done for a friend and they're horrid, and he charged them! i seriously would've climbed under a rock if they were mine.

[Robert16]

+1 for personality. I'd take whatever time you could spare (and there wouldn't be a lot 2 days before your wedding) and have a chat. Personally I'd go for the sports photographer - working under pressure in a constantly changing environment.

[SoccerRef]

I would say neither... Managing a wedding takes a lot more than just being able to take a good picture. Taking the photos is the easy part. Its all the other stuff that screws things up. How can you trust someone with no experience?


So you'd forego a photographer for your wedding? The OP was these 2 photogs were the only option, what would you do? The studio photog or the sports shooter....personally, I too would hire the studio guy and tell everyone else to bring their digicams and I would arrange for a download of all their pics onto my laptop (or other digital storage device) before they left so I could do my own PS....

jwilson, I'd have to agree with cory1848 on this one... Something would be better than nothing!

cory1848 - Interesting option... One we didn't discuss, but today that would certainly be an option, remember, the Groom was a Wedding photographer himself, so this option is definitely a good one.

I'd hire the one with the best personality.

I think having fun at your wedding is the most important thing.
Yes, even beyond the photography. (Blasphemy, I know!)

Excellent! Many things came up in our discussion, but not this! Very good thinking though. Certainly gets "out of the box".

[Peacefield]

Ultimately, this is a traditional style vs. photojournalistic style question. It's an over simplification, but the portrait guy should do a better job with the traditional shots and the sports guy might do a better job photojournalistically. That said, so much of great wedding photograhpy is about the creative use of light so I would go Portrait Guy.

[howzitboy]

think the portrait photographer would be at a loss cuz when u shoot studio stuff, your couple arent moving all over the place or having things happen fast!! i cant picture a studio photographer blasting away a couple hundred/thousand shots. and if its a location that wont allow flash, think he/she would be in over their head.

while sports photographers are used to trying to capture once in a lifetime shots. they are used to shooting fast and lotsa lotsa pictures. they prob know their gear like back of their hands and can handle hard lighting situations.

so, out of those two choices, id take one with better personality too!!