Re: Wedding photography versus altitude

"Patrick L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:

I'm not a pro, but I've done weddings, so I'll comment, if I may.

> 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.

I think wedding photography isn't the worst thing.
> 
> Have any of you wedding shooters out their come across this
> attitude with other types of photographers?

No, never. Wedding photography just seems to be a part of the 
business. Somehow, every pro I know has done it at some point of 
time.

> 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.

Well, I wish I would get payed for doing weddings. I do them because 
I like to. As I said, I'm not a pro, and most couples I've taken 
pictures of couldn't afford a photographer anyway.

> They are happy, joyous affairs (usually).

Yes, sometimes they aren't, but usually they are.

> Free food, usually pretty good.

I don't care much about the free food, but I always take pictures of 
it, anyway ;)

> I"ve found most brides and grooms easy to please, which, as I
> understand it, is not the case with magazine photo editors.

This is the one thing I don't like about it. The bride usually says 
that she just wants photos as a kind of keepsake, something that 
just shows what it was like and who was there, that they don't have 
to be particularly good photos, but every person who was there 
should be on one photo at least. And that I should take my time 
doing the prints, they don't need them that soon. They lie. They 
never mean it. They want good photos and they want them ASAP, even 
if they don't say so. And they are dissapointed if they don't have 
the photos 3 days later, unless they are on a honeymoon.

> 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.

Well, but you don't get that kind of feedback, unless you are really 
good or do something very special.

> 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.

Feedback. If a photo you've taken is in the local newspaper, many 
people will see it, but no one will call you and say "Hey, I've seen 
the photo, it's really beautiful.". Brides and grooms and their 
family and friends do that, and I enjoy that.

It's a challenge. You only get one chance to make it right, and 
every couple is convinced that they are not gonna marry again or get 
divorced. One chance, and if you mess it up, you can't just say 
"Let's do it again!". That makes it more interesting, and that's why 
I really give my best.

Maybe being a good photojournalist, winning prices, or doing great 
fashion photography has more glamour or excitement. But the pictures 
you take at those fields will probably never mean as much for a 
single person than the photos of their own wedding. The wedding 
pictures are very special and important to them. Call me romantic or 
idealistic, but that really means a lot to me.

Timo
can't believe I wrote that... although I mean it...