Pat Warnshuis wrote:
>
> >>my sister in law asked me to be the photographer on her wedding. <<
>
> DON'T DO IT!!!
> Volunteer to take pictures at the wedding but DO NOT
> take on the responsibility of being THE wedding photog.
> This is a specialty field and, trust me, you are going to
> fail their expectations in some way. There are scores of horror
> stories of relationships destroyed by false and un-negotiated
> expectations on both sides.
Well, I'd also advise caution, but I have done this before for
friends and relatives, as well as doing some self-photography
of my wife and I at our own wedding. Some of the nicest people
shots I've ever got have been at weddings. The results won't
necessarily be poor.
That said, the very first wedding I did produced some useable
pics that were fairly nice, but I was never pleased with the work
I did that first time. Even today, I know that if I made my living
at it I'd be a lot better, and I know there are lots of professional
wedding photographers in my area who could do a better job on
the whole.
Equipment-wise, were I doing it for a living I'd be using
different equipment mainly to get the noise level down which can
be a distraction in a quiet church (the F90X is far, far too
loud; I'd use a different MF format camera with different lenses
than what I use now, and I'd have a backup MF camera). With few
exceptions my best work out of weddings has been produced on
medium and large format, not 35mm. I would personally seriously
question doing a wedding in only 35mm -- I know from my own
experience that this would not produce the quality of result
that I like to see. The people might or might not be happy with
it, but how happy would you be with the results you produce?
The people for whom I'd done this generally were on a very tight
budget, and always knew what to expect (I have built up something
of a wedding portfolio). So, I guess I'd have to say that you
should be your own best judge, but if this is your first time
shooting a wedding you may find that the difficulty is not in
the technical aspects of taking a pic but in other things, like
juggling equipment, people and locations. I prefer to bring an
assistant when I do it, it lets me be more relaxed and deal
with the people better when I'm not juggling equipment. If you
have someone who can do this for you, I'd recommend it.
One other thing - photographing a wedding is WORK. You can't
enjoy and participate in the wedding the same way when you
are the photographer.
So ask yourself:
- what are the client's expectations? Why are they asking you
to take the photos instead of a professional? When someone
asks me to do this, I always try to sell them on using a
pro and only show them my portfolio if they are insistent.
- do I have the right equipment (you may need different equipment
for different environments based on camera noise, light (and
time of day!), availability of an assistant, equipment setup
and portability issues, expected level of quality, possibility
of equipment failure, etc)
- have I done it before? Am I good at dealing with crowds of
people? Do I handle stress well? Am I really up to the task?
- do I have time to do it? The wedding event itself is just
the tip of the iceberg. If you haven't shot at the venue
before (or if it may have changed in some way), you'll
be showing up beforehand to check locations for shots,
lighting, etc. You have to know exactly what you are
doing beforehand - things happen quickly at a wedding
and winging it doesn't cut it (imho).
- do I want to enjoy the wedding? Being the wedding photog
for someone that you care about is a major sacrifice
one your part, even if you are a good photographer. If
you are a bad photographer, everyone loses and your
relationship with the couple may suffer.
OB Nikon comment - if I were shooting weddings professionally
I wouldn't be using Nikon for my primary 35mm. AF, shutters,
film advance, rewind are all too noisy (the older manual stuff
is OK though). (Flame if you must)
