Re: Wedding photography versus altitude

I used to say that photography is a lot like pop music, for every mega star
making millions with their creative efforts, there is a million doing
weddings.

I think its a pose, a lot of photogs do a wedding when they don't know what
they are doing and get their fingers burned, but a lot also do a wedding and
think, this is cool.

I for one don't relish the idea of spending my day in a darkroom, with some
manager jerk standing over me with a stop watch timing how many orders I
video color correct per hour, how many orders I push through, jeez, that's
one micro-managed business.

but I don't think too many wedding photographers would take serious offense,
not only do we hear it alot, but we're all probably a bit masocistic (sp?
like I care?)

btw, 90% of all problems that those who hold that 'attitude' believe is
endemic to weddings can be headed off before the wedding day if you take the
couple out for an engagement shoot.   I've posted the reasons for this
before so I won't go into it again, but think, the folks hold a rehearsal
the night before so everybody is on the same page just walking down the
aisle, how hard is that? but they don't go over what is to be expected in
the photography.   I can really feel the difference between a cold start and
one where I've warmed the creative partnership up.

this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com

> 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.
>
> They are happy, joyous affairs (usually).
>
> Free food, usually pretty good.
>
> I"ve found most brides and grooms easy to please, which, as I understand
it,
> is not the case with magazine photo editors.
>
> Pay is good.
>
> Exposure to different cultures (and I find the sociological &
> anthropological aspects of weddings from one culture to another, very
> interesting).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>