You really can't win

Sorry, I should have put a smiley, I was desribing the reason why photos I take as a guest at weddings are 'off axis' (the vertical one that is) tends to be due to too many trips to the watering hole!

at least they are being honest. is right we must start some were so good on them we are all Guilty of doing this and them who say they have not tell lies we have all done photos for our friends and family and we had to start some were and when we get to were we are going or in other words get better then we can up the cost and charge what we want

After looking at those I'm beginning to think that, as with politics, you should only employ people who don't volunteer to do the job!

I would never want to shoot weddings professionally simply due to the stress. While you can take every reasonable precaution in terms of kit, venue, etc there's always Murphy's Law waiting to trip you up, only this time it'll ruin the record of what remains one of the biggest days of anyone's life.

thats why poeple like this do it becouse no one whats it or they charge to much like $1799.99c

If you think it's too much that professionals charge, then think of the equipment, transport, time at the wedding, time spent after the wedding, insurance and the time spent gaining the skills to do the job properly.

Then it may start to look less expensive.

Professionally, I'd agree. But what do you do when a hard-up close friend practically begs you to do it for them?

It's happened to me twice - in each case they couldn't afford a pro, and in fact were doing their own catering in the local village hall, in conjunction with some of the guests that were bringing food.

The answer is, in my case, you agonise, dither, and eventually agree to give it your best shot. You prepare the very best you can, you get as much advice as you can, and you make sure you know how your kit works.

People with digital cameras faced with this dilemma don't know they're born, frankly. These days, you can retake after looking on the back, and fix some imperfections later. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot more in the way of 'arty' shots required these days, which wasn't so much in vogue in the '80s.

The ones I did were with a Super A, a Me Super, a couple of primes and a 28-80 zoom. They worked out Ok, and the couples were pleased, so all's well that ended.

Scarred for life, me, though. It was an adrenaline kind of day, each time.

Chris, digital has made it all much harder for the pro, not easier.

The shoot is much the same except you'll shoot more. In the past you handed your film into the lab showed the couple proofs and stuck the chosen prints in an album. Now I spend twice as much time in front of the screen as I did shooting and I'm the kind of photographer of gets it right in camera

Gawd. More than happy to be corrected - is that because the standard expected has gone up? Because it's possible to achieve more?

I just kind of imagined that I'd prefer to have the flexibility of digital if I had to do it again.

Here's hoping I don't

I do think people expect more from digital than they did from film.

In film days they were happy with well exposed/composed/focussed shots which looked as natural as possible. Most of the work was done in-camera.

Now with the rise of photo manipulation packages they all want to look like the airbrushed airheads in the waste-of-paper magazines. A lot more effort for the photographer in converting their realistic shots to "perfect" portraits which hide any blemishes!

If I ever get invited to a wedding as a guest I'm taking the MX and the 40mm pancake. Should be a good conversation starter and decent mono images will be very different to anything else friends of the couple would be likely to produce!

I think my parents had two black and white shots done for their wedding, one family group and a bride and groom only standing on the church steps, bring back the good old days

I've been pressganged into shooting weddings three times (free for friends) and I'll not shoot another, I agree with the comments above, they are just too stressful and I'm not good enough to do them justice especially if money is involved.

You've never been invited to a wedding? You're either younger than I thought, or you're a right liability at parties

Not entirely sure which!

I think it's a case of people getting married in their 30s rather than 20s now, and the ones I know well enough to expect an invitation aren't likely to be booking a venue in the near future. I only seem to know either people who aren't likely to be getting married for some time or people who already were by the time I met them!

I used to know a chap whose "hobby" was wedding photography.

He would dress smartly and turn up at a wedding and start snapping away, then leave.

It was years before he was challenged as everyone thought he was either the official photographers assistant or a guest from the other side.

So don't despair Matt, put your glad rags on and get out there. Who knows you might forge a career from the portflio you'll acquire

Bernard

MMmmmmmm Cake! yes please

Regards

That could actually work in the prospective wedding 'togs favour, of course...

Would you buy an Aston Martin and fit cheap Chinese tyres?

Would you buy a Marentz Hi-Fi and listen to it through Tesco Value headphones?

So why are you booking the venue, the caterer, the car, the dress, and having the photos taken by someone using a compact stuck on Auto?