The State of Wedding Photography

[Peter De Smidt]

I have 8x10 photos from both of my grand parent's weddings. In each case, There's a photo of the bride and a photo of the couple. They look like contact prints. They are very well done, and the prints look great, with no signs of deterioration, even though they were produced in the 1920s. So, my question is, why isn't that enough? Isn't a couple of well done photos worth more than a trunk of hundreds of so-so ones?

[Steve Smith]

I think that's enough. Judging by threads on other forums though, brides seem to expect a couple of thousand images now. I think the sixty in my wedding album is probably about right.

When my father started doing weddings he was sent out with ten glass plates and told not to waste any! That should be enough.

Seriously though, does anyone really look at their wedding albums that much? As you suggest, a couple of nice prints would be plenty especially if framed and displayed.


Steve.

[Bob Carnie]

I started my career as a wedding photographer, after five years seeing negatives coming back for reprinting due to fading , I came to the conclusion that it was not a profession I would continue with.
I do believe that a few well made photographs that have archival stability, would be all that the loving couple really need. Unfortunately , every one loves colour and unless one is making tri colour gums or carbons , todays prints have a a short shelf life.
The first wedding I photographed for my mentor, was a mess, I came back with way too many exposures and really no winners, He taught me to take more time and make sure every time I squeezed the button, the bride and groom would love the photo.
I am sure there are a few photographers still out there doing it right , but probably very hard to find and most likely very busy.
The studio I worked for shot 8x10 in the studio using Black White film and the core of the wedding package were contact prints on Cycora paper. Mr Philip used red coccine to open up the shadows and was a master retoucher who knew how to work on the negatives.
His prints were spectacular and I was humbled by the quality that he produced in the 50' and 60's before colour came onto the wedding scene.
When he offered me the business, I had to decline basically because of the lack of stability of the colour process.
When I hear of the state of the business now , I cringe.

I have 8x10 photos from both of my grand parent's weddings. In each case, There's a photo of the bride and a photo of the couple. They look like contact prints. They are very well done, and the prints look great, with no signs of deterioration, even though they were produced in the 1920s. So, my question is, why isn't that enough? Isn't a couple of well done photos worth more than a trunk of hundreds of so-so ones?

[wclark5179]

I find there are several reasons for the wishes of people today. Perhaps my view is determined from where I live & the clients I attract, culture, income, age of clients and other ingredients.

Brides today get information from various sources including, friends, magazines, movies, T.V., the internet and, I believe to a lesser degree, family including relatives. Religion can be a factor but I find less so amongst people who hire me.

Brides want to look beautiful. They get the idea/concept of beautiful images from the sources I mentioned in the above paragraph. They see very few, if any, of the photos mentioned in the first two posts, other than what parents or grandparents may have. They think the photos look stiff, unnatural and not a part of what they want to see of themselves. Whatever I think or you for that matter, in business if you're trying to earn a living in the photography profession, beauty is in the eye of the person who has the checkbook. If you want to stick to principles/art be prepared to work hard finding potential clients who share your vision or have a day job to support yourself.

Attitudes have changed. Technology has allowed it as back in the 1950's when I started in photography I couldn't make photos like I can today.

I make photos with more of a style clients want but I still use classical portrait principles that my mentor & coach Monte Zucker taught me.

Telling someone to look happy is quite different than catching them when emotions peak and they show it and want to see their wedding day as a happy day, full of little emotional blips that they want captured with photography. I advocate group photos as well. You are correct that they are important but the others are important to the client.

These people, my clients, generally, are not actors. Acting is difficult. That's why I capture them when they are happy because it won't look the same as if you tell them to look happy.

That's why I love the wedding photography business. So much variety within each wedding and each wedding is a unique event as the people react in so many different ways.

[mgb74]

I'll second Peter's comment. I have some wedding photos from my parents done in the late 40's. Likely with a 4x5. It's seems there was more a focus on the family, rather than the bride herself.

What was missing is a sense of spontaneity, which would complement the more formal shots well. But overall, you don't see that timeless quality as much now. Maybe a reflection of an overall bias toward quantity rather than quality. Maybe I'm just in gezer mode.

[jnanian]

it is a different time than the 20s or even the 50s/60s ...
brides and grooms don't remember any of their reception
so they want a ton of images ... the photographer remembers the wedding for them.

quantity is the thing now .. 5000 proof images to look at,
and cd's of images so they can share them with friends and family who were there or couldn't make it ...
i can understand why brides and grooms don't just want 2 or 3 or even just 10 images.

[Bob Carnie]

I met Monte Zuker in 1975, he was brought to our photo school and I do like his lighting and emotion.
What I find lacking is that if you look back at all the work that he and many others of his skill level you will find that very few if any of the wedding portraits exist today in any state of acceptable level.
I think the OP may be reflecting on the fact that he has in his hands beautiful memories of grandparents that are very tangible to him.
I have met many great wedding photographers in my course of running a photographic lab, and the most common tie with all of them is the fact that the wonderful work that they did is now a cyan mess hanging on a clients wall.
Reprinting is not a option as most of the negatives of the era Mr Zuker are very well known for are fading and turning into messy glops that are un -printable.
I was approached recently by a very well known Canadian Wedding/Portrait photographer of the same era of Mr Zuker. All his work was in colour and produced at a very good wedding lab in town. He was being asked to provide 100 portraits to the national archives and my job was to scan , edit and produce 100 individual black white silver prints.
Unfortunately all his negative were in such bad shape that I could not fix the damage of these faded colour negatives.
You only have to go into any local high school and look at the Principle Portrait wall. There is a gap in time where the images are in such poor shape compared to the rest .
I do understand that your photography has evolved and today you may be capturing much more creative images than one could 40 years ago, but the issue of colour print permanance has not evolved in the same way which is quite disturbing.
BTW I do not buy into all the claims being made on colour permanace, I make RA4 and Inkjet and have seen for myself the limitations of each process.

I find there are several reasons for the wishes of people today. Perhaps my view is determined from where I live & the clients I attract, culture, income, age of clients and other ingredients.

Brides today get information from various sources including, friends, magazines, movies, T.V., the internet and, I believe to a lesser degree, family including relatives. Religion can be a factor but I find less so amongst people who hire me.

Brides want to look beautiful. They get the idea/concept of beautiful images from the sources I mentioned in the above paragraph. They see very few, if any, of the photos mentioned in the first two posts, other than what parents or grandparents may have. They think the photos look stiff, unnatural and not a part of what they want to see of themselves. Whatever I think or you for that matter, in business if you're trying to earn a living in the photography profession, beauty is in the eye of the person who has the checkbook. If you want to stick to principles/art be prepared to work hard finding potential clients who share your vision or have a day job to support yourself.

Attitudes have changed. Technology has allowed it as back in the 1950's when I started in photography I couldn't make photos like I can today.

I make photos with more of a style clients want but I still use classical portrait principles that my mentor & coach Monte Zucker taught me.

Telling someone to look happy is quite different than catching them when emotions peak and they show it and want to see their wedding day as a happy day, full of little emotional blips that they want captured with photography. I advocate group photos as well. You are correct that they are important but the others are important to the client.

These people, my clients, generally, are not actors. Acting is difficult. That's why I capture them when they are happy because it won't look the same as if you tell them to look happy.

That's why I love the wedding photography business. So much variety within each wedding and each wedding is a unique event as the people react in so many different ways.

[Bob Carnie]

On a side note,
I remember a guy by the name of Rocky Gunn who for his time was quite unique. His style reminds me of a lot of the work I see today.
He had a crew that basically worked with him from wedding to wedding, There were the technical assistants that would take the family groups, and cover the basic story with precision , and then Rocky would roll in with a couple of assistants for an hour or two max and shoot the creatives with the bride and groom, He was very popular and charged large.
I always wonder what happened to him.

[dpurdy]

I find if I dictate my own terms I don't get any work. I did my first couple of D weddings this year because it is what everyone wants. Images on disk. If you shoot that way you might as well keep banging as fast as your flash will recycle, of course a lot of wedding photography is being aware of what is going on where and watching for important moments. I visited a previous client last week for whom I had shot all black and white and done all the prints myself. She had just returned from getting them all scanned and was creating slide shows for digital picture frames. That is what the parents wanted. The prints go in a drawer and all viewing is done on some sort of monitor.
Dennis

[lns]

I have 8x10 photos from both of my grand parent's weddings. In each case, There's a photo of the bride and a photo of the couple. They look like contact prints. They are very well done, and the prints look great, with no signs of deterioration, even though they were produced in the 1920s. So, my question is, why isn't that enough? Isn't a couple of well done photos worth more than a trunk of hundreds of so-so ones?

Yes, it's enough, strictly speaking. But you must be an only child of only children. My parents married in the 1940s, and they have the same two beautiful 8x10 prints you describe. Well, they have 4 children and 9 grandchildren (and counting). The negatives of course will be unobtainable, so there are no reprints possible. So it might be nice if they had a few extra wedding photographs after all.

-Laura