Dear Bob,
Interesting article, but I can't say I agree with a lot of it. Whenever I can't get out of shooting a wedding -- maybe half a dozen times in the last 35 years -- I make it abundantly clear that I shoot it my way (or, since I met Frances Schultz 26 years ago, that we shoot in our way) and that if they want it done their way (or indeed your way), they can damn' well hire a photographer.
I completely disagree with your views about professionalism: if they're friends, they know me, and they know full well that I don't do suits. Likewise I disagree about your choice of cameras and focal lengths (we use rangefinder and fast 35, 50 and 75 or 90mm), film (Delta 3200 works wonders for many shots), flash (can't abide the stuff), tripods (never use 'em any more) and the interminable shot list.
You also make a lot of cultural assumptions about what a wedding has to be like. Many are a good deal more bohemian than you suggest.
Film, initial machine processing (for XP2 and colour) and a few hand-coloured prints are part of the wedding gift (as is the shoot). Reprints are their problem. We commonly shoot 500-1000 images, almost all 35mm B+W plus a few MF group shots in colour.
Everyone so far has been delighted. I fear there will be one more (we're into friends' children now) but that should be the last. Your approach seems to me to add a lot of stress on all sides -- yours and the couple's -- and it's not really about photographing friends' weddings at all: it's about semi-pro wedding photography.
Sorry to be so negative, but I just thought that others who are asked to shoot friends' weddings might find it easier and more rewarding to adopt my more casual approach. As I say, if this doesn't suit the happy couple, they can go find someone else.
Cheers,
Roger |