Has anyone ever embarrassed of shooting a low budget wedding?

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16203272
Business advice: Show what you want to shoot.

Personal advice: if a wedding couple is using fake flowers, and the cake looks cheap and the groom isn't wearing a suit, the couple probably doesn't have a lot of money. Perhaps some humility and understanding is in order here.

Pretty much this. I've done low budget destination weddings where it's just the couple, no guests, nothing and have some of my best images from that. It's in your ability as a photographer to make it look good.

I wouldn't be embarrassed to shoot it but I might not show it to others. It depends what I was able to come away with.

We're not miracle workers so I'd suggest the person who said you shouldn't be a wedding photographer if you can't always come away with amazing shots probably hasn't done it before. You should be able to always get a handful of amazing images but the album might not appeal to strangers as a whole.

Just like I can make anyone look relatively sexy in a boudoir but that doesn't mean they're all going to look like Victoria's Secret models.

nightmaresonwax wrote in post #16206403
Pretty much this. I've done low budget destination weddings where it's just the couple, no guests, nothing and have some of my best images from that. It's in your ability as a photographer to make it look good.

The operative word here being "destination."

Destination weddings are like fish in a barrel. If you can't get good images there, you basically suck.

are we confusing low budget with bad taste?

there is nothing embarrassing about people not having the money to splash out on a fancy wedding and I'd say a good photographer should be able to record the day at its best.

Bad taste, on the other hand, has nothing to do with money and plenty of expensive weddings can be tacky with hideous colours. But that said, it is still the photographer's job to show off the day its best without passing judgement. The day belongs to the happy couple, after all.

On the question of whether you should use the photos to advertise your work, well, only you can say if the shots are a good advertisement for your skills.

cdifoto wrote in post #16206420
The operative word here being "destination."

Destination weddings are like fish in a barrel. If you can't get good images there, you basically suck.

That's true, I suppose. I mentioned 'destination' as it was the most recent one. Though we did plenty of low-budget stuff in our time (now our package prices aren't in the low budget range) and had nothing but good feedback from clients. Also it's destination for the couple, but home for us.

Either way, just echoing some people here in that low-budget doesn't automatically equal bad enough to not show in an album. Creative use of depth of field, perspective, etc. can fix most of those problems.

my wedding was really low budget. The wedding took place in a improvised church 22 ft wide X 45 ft long.

I have one this weekend. Going to be a challenge. Backyard wedding and a not so nice venue. I am honored to have been chosen by the couple

A good photog will make lemonade out of lemons.

My version of this was a extremely low budget wedding where it was a few paces above the justice of peace. They loved the photo's. I thought I may not post/share, but the couples enthusiasm about the pictures completely altered my views. I want the work, I want clients that want good shots, and to be honest I need experiences, low budget high budget, bridzilla, I need to be professional at all aspects. Going in I told myself that it doesn't matter what their social status, or financial outlooks are, what matters is they hired me to provide a service, and I will provide that with the very best effort, and professionalism that I can. I guess if I ever want to be called "PRO" I might want to carry myself that way.

Your job is to capture people for who they are and to make the images look better than reality. You don't owe the client your judgement about their choices and who they are. There's cultures and subcultures who dare to stand out in terms of their thoughts on the institution and the way of creating it and most of the time their reasons are very legitimate... and when they're not, it's still their right.

As for the marketing material, if you find it unsuitable - don't show it.

picard wrote in post #16208820
my wedding was really low budget. The wedding took place in a improvised church 22 ft wide X 45 ft long.

Want to talk low budget, my wedding took place in my parents backyard and I assembled most of the 'alter' setup myself that morning. Granted we did it there because my mother was in a wheelchair and has a hard time getting anywhere, but it was still super low budget.

To the OP I wouldn't be embarrassed, the one and only wedding I shot was low budget even if they didn't have the highest end everything they still loved the photos because it was their day and that is what they wanted to remember.

If you shot pictures of a nasty colored cake or one that came from the day old rack at Wal-Mart that is what they had. I wouldn't use it in my portfolio, but I wouldn't be embarrassed to shoot it.

Toolman21... picard is the op

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16203272
Business advice: Show what you want to shoot.

Personal advice: if a wedding couple is using fake flowers, and the cake looks cheap and the groom isn't wearing a suit, the couple probably doesn't have a lot of money. Perhaps some humility and understanding is in order here.

I wish I could favourite this post.

It is a clients wedding and it should be the way they want it, no matter how gaudy we think it is. Not our business. I worked with a person and that couple were into Tim Burton. I did not shoot the wedding but I did look at some images. The wedding cake was topped animated characters from his films and so was everything else including the couple. Not my cup of tee and I would not add that to my album.

It is a personal choice when it comes to that. By not putting them in a album I don't think you are losing out on that market because I don't think it is big. It may turn potential traditional customers away.

digital paradise wrote in post #16212927
It is a clients wedding and it should be the way they want it, no matter how gaudy we think it is. Not our business. I worked with a person and that couple were into Tim Burton. I did not shoot the wedding but I did look at some images. The wedding cake was topped animated characters from his films and so was everything else including the couple. Not my cup of tee and I would not add that to my album.

It is a personal choice when it comes to that. By not putting them in a album I don't think you are losing out on that market because I don't think it is big. It may turn potential traditional customers away.

Is that the same as low budget though? Maybe it didn't cost much to put together but I'd put that under themed wedding, not necessarily low budget.

Low budget weddings CAN be beautiful but more often than not the reality is a tile stained pool hall venue, outdated discount decorations, rows of folding tables with or without coverings, and no landscaped garden outside to make up for it all.

I'm never embarrassed to shoot anything that a couple saved their pennies to have me shoot (it's actually a MUCH bigger honor than being hired by wealthy people), but that doesn't mean my fee is going to make the dungeon of the VFW look like the main ballroom of the Ritz. You'll end up with photos that try to hide where you were married if you want beautiful images. Anything showing off where you were married is going to fall under the heading of your basic reportage.