Wedding photography - the essentials

When I read threads like this I am somewhat amused. I used to be a wedding photographer, amongst all the other things I did and never had more than one camera, one flash, one lens ... nor did I ever have a contract.

I guess that is a difference between the film and digital ages :) A sad example of if it is possible to do then we should do it which I experienced later in life when I joined TV ...a technologically obsessed industry. I remember skilled operators bemoaning that things went much better with greater reliability before recording of material was possible.

By the by I completely agree that stills and video are incompatible in a similar way to shooting silent and combined visual plus audio ... quite different requirements for subsequent PP.

End of rant :)

edit .. I realise now there are three pages to this thread and I skipped from page one to write this :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

shouldn't that read:

Two rolls of VPS, (the third roll is the spare, the Wedding Album only fits two dozen photos)

WW

---

Then William, you will finally agree with me if I say a Wedding Photographer rattling off 2000-3000 shots on a single wedding is not a good Photographer but a rather better machine gunner.:eek:

Spray and pray Wedding Photographer! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

Then William, you will finally agree with me if I say a Wedding Photographer rattling off 2000-3000 shots on a single wedding is not a good Photographer but a rather better machine gunner.:eek:

---

The number of shots a photographer takes during the event is irrelevant. A good photographer meets or exceeds the expectations of the client. The process of getting there is immaterial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Venser

The number of shots a photographer takes during the event is irrelevant. A good photographer meets or exceeds the expectations of the client. The process of getting there is immaterial.

---

I guess it could be true:
Workflow - 3000 shots x 5sec to view each=15000 sec that = 250min = 4.16 hours
No wonder some "good Photographers" spend more time editing than they spend shooting! :D

Guess no "good Photographer" can use a Blad or Leica S2 to shoot a wedding. At only 1.5 frames per second you cannot be a good wedding photographer............. or can you? :eek:

I still prefer getting there by knowing at what exact moment to press the shutter button. But that is only me. I still like capturing moments in time rather than producing photographs on a computer. Must be the reason my images are getting worse. :(

Maybe I should start working on those "immaterial processes".
Thanks Venser, I'll keep it in mind. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

Guess no "good Photographer" can use a Blad or Leica S2 to shoot a wedding. At only 1.5 frames per second you cannot be a good wedding photographer............. or can you? :eek

---

I didn't write that. I wrote a good photographer simply meets or exceeds client expectations. Someone could take a roll of film and shoot only 24 shots over the course of the entire wedding and knock it out of the park.

The point was a spray and pray photographer could satisfy those same clients using a different approach. Each has their pros and cons, but neither is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcuknz

... nor did I ever have a contract.

---

The world was probably less litigious back when you were shooting weddings. It's hard to find actual numbers, so I could be wrong. I'm relatively young and after reading horror stories galore on any photography site, contracts are essential to saving your ass. I'm generalizing, but the litigious nature of everything seems to have taken a sharp increase after the advent of social media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

Then William, you will finally agree with me if I say a Wedding Photographer rattling off 2000-3000 shots on a single wedding is not [necessarily] a good Photographer but a rather better machine gunner.:eek:

Spray and pray Wedding Photographer! :D

---

In this regard, (with my edit) I must say

"I do" (pun intended)

But that dos not mean we are married and will agree for life.

***

The technique of 3000 shots has its place and can be used to achieve a very high level of excellence.

There is one fellow whose work I have critiqued and also judged who uses two cameras, sometimes simultaneously, and with hand held off camera flash and his rapid-fire technique produces results which are pure genius: his eye and his response time are amazing and he produces the best-ever Ultra Wide Angle portraiture, that I have ever judged.

I don't usually attest to broad generalizations, so the word "necessarily" needs to be inserted in your statement for me to agree with it.

My answer to Black Pearl, whilst having genuine meaning to it apropos: "make one shot - one perfect shot", it was also a tad tongue in cheek.

We must move forward and make meaningful use of technologies based on the outputs we want and that for some might mean shooting 3000 or more images, across a Wedding Coverage.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

In this regard, (with my edit) I must say

"I do" (pun intended)

But that dos not mean we are married and will agree for life.

***

WW

---

Damn! Agreed - again! :eek:

Better to keep the divorce papers in tact! :D

What did we do in the days of film ? My daughter is getting married in April this year. Daddy is Not taking the photographs. I have hired a pro .... Costing the earth but peace of mind ... Must dash and write my speech !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by victor

What did we do in the days of film ?

---

Depends when. How long ago?

I started shooting Weddings professionally in the mid 1970's and I used two Mamyia 645 SLRs and also carried a 135 Format Kit comprising three bodies an four (prime) lenses, and the 135 Format gear was typically used only for "The Candids"

In 1960's ~ 70's one typically used two 6x6 or 645 Medium Format cameras, (TLR were still common and relatively cheap), and typically used nothing more than a Standard 80mm lens, F/2.8, if it could be afforded on each camera. One camera would be loaded with Colour Negative Film and the other with Black and White Negative Film. Often the B&W was Tri-X and some rolls were rated at ASA 1600 (even ASA 3200) and subsequently push processed such that "The Candids" could be shot sans flash.

The ant's pants was using a 645 or 6x6 SLR with an 80mm Leaf Shutter Lens.

It wasn't until the 80's that Miniature Format SLR's became the mainstream for Professional Wedding Photographers: and then a set of three fast Primes, chosen from: 28 / 50 / 85 / 135 was the norm. Fast, Quality Zoom Lenses, did not exist and when they were first introduced, they were exceptionally pricey by comparison with Prime Lenses.

In the 80's and 90's was usual to carry three 135 Format SLR's, two loaded with Colour Film and one with Black and White Film.

Of course with film, one was always counting the shots on each camera, such that roll changes were done at a break in the proceedings; unless, of course, one employed an Assistant for various purposes, one of which was the Camera Loader.

WW