Re: Wedding photography versus altitude

"Patrick L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The other day, I was at a photo lab, one that professes to be a pro lab.
I
> was waiting for the fellow (who was the owner) behind the counter to
finish
> with another customer, but I overheard his reply to the customer who asked
> him if he did weddings -- a reply which exuded the unmistakable aura of
> condescension regarding wedding photography.  He said "I don't do wedding
> photography",  with a big frown and accent on the word 'do', as if those
who
> do this type of photography are in some kind of diminutive class.
>
>
> I realize wedding photography does not have the glamour and probably not
as
> much excitement as photojournalism,  but I was really offended by his
> comment, especially since a good part of his photo processing business
comes
> from wedding photographers.
>
> Have any of you wedding shooters out their come across this attitude with
> other types of photographers?
>
> And how many of you would rather be into some other type of photography,
but
> do weddings solely for the bread and butter aspect?    I can respect the
> latter, since it sure as hell beats flipping burgers.
>
> I'll tell you what I like about weddings.

And I'll tell you what I don't like about weddings!
>
> They are happy, joyous affairs (usually).
Everyone in the wedding is stressed out because they have to have everything
"just perfect"
>
> Free food, usually pretty good.
Cheap food, usually cooked last week and very dry.
>
> I"ve found most brides and grooms easy to please, which, as I understand
it,
> is not the case with magazine photo editors.
Most brides' mothers can be a real PITA at the wedding, and if you miss a
photo of Uncle Edgar (who spent the wedding in the car listening to the game
on the radio), they want you to re-create the entire day, or refund
everything.
>
> Pay is good.
When you include all your time (sorting negs, putting albums together, etc),
it ain't that good.
>
> Exposure to different cultures (and I find the sociological &
> anthropological aspects of weddings from one culture to another, very
> interesting).
I concede this point-- depends on your location.
>
> It's all about people, moments, memories, and the fact that, when all is
> done with the wedding,  my work is going to stay with that family for a
long
> time (unless they get divorced, of course).   So if you love shooting
> people, this is a good thing.
The same can be said for studio portraits, except that you don't have the
travel and pressure.
>
> In many other types of photography (excluding art-in-museums stuff),  your
> work is seen by the public not in their original print form,  but in
> magazines, books, brochures, billboards, etc.    This is not the case with
> wedding photography.
>
> And here is what I really like about it,  and that is the fact that in a
> fast paced environment, you must be able to summons forth anything and
> everything you have learned about the subject, and apply your knowledge
> quickly, so  this environment is very good for honing one's skill.
I'll conceded that point-- I prefer to work in a more relaxed, structured
environment.
>
> But, alas,  there is one big thing I don't like about it:  The fact that
the
> only people to whom your work has real meaning are the bride, groom, and
> their family.
>
> Well, nothing in this world lets you have it all.
>
>
> Patrick
>
If you enjoy wedding photography, more power to you! For me, I consider it
too much time, too much hassle, not enough money, not enough opportunity to
get really creative.
The only wedding I really enjoyed shooting was my nephew's. He and his bride
hired a wedding photographer, and I just took pictures for myself.

Ken