Vogue Magazine recently released a list of 10 things the modern wedding can do without. Along with rings and the first dance, Vogue wants you to say "I don't" to hiring a professional photographer because a wedding is about "true love" and a photographer "detracts from that." Excuse me?
Before I dive into this, I want to be clear about something: I'm not writing this purely from the perspective of a photographer who wants you to give him your money in exchange for photographing your wedding. I'm also writing this from the perspective of a human being who hopefully will one day be getting married himself. I'm writing this from a hybrid perspective of someone who takes photos at weddings in a professional capacity and someone who is discussing how he would like his own wedding to be.
Here's what Vogue had to say with regards to hiring a professional wedding photographer:
It made sense back in the olden days, pre-Facebook albums and Instagram hashtags, when the whole world didn’t have phones with cameras on them. Having the actual leather-bound album on your coffee table seemed like the only evidence that the whole thing actually took place. If social media is not your thing, why not scatter some disposable cameras around the party and let your drunken guests go to town? You’ll end up with hilarious and candid pictures without the pressure of 'likes.'
The first half of the quote seems to make the claim that the only reason to have a wedding photographer is to have physical proof that the wedding happened, and now that social media and camera phones are ubiquitous, such physical proof is redundant and unnecessary. I'm not really sure I understand the angle here. Without speaking for every couple who has a wedding album on their coffee table, I would go so far as to say that the more likely explanation for possessing such a book is for the purposes of reminiscing and sharing of a happy event, not literal proof of the event's occurrence. You'll have other legal documentation if you really need to prove that it happened. If the point is sharing the event with friends and family who weren't there, don't you want them to experience the event at the same level of detail and quality that you did? We'll get to that.
The second half of the quote seems to be implying that the only reason people get a professional photographer these days is to succumb to the social pressure of posting them online to receive affirmation. Frankly, if a couple is secure enough in their love to get married, I highly doubt they need it to be reaffirmed through Facebook likes. The author's solution to this nonexistent problem is to "scatter some disposable cameras around the party and let your drunken guests go to town." Sure, that'll likely capture a few fun pictures at the reception. What about the ceremony? You know, the part where you actually get married? Will you be passing out disposable cameras and flasks to get the guests prepared to photograph that too? Sure, most of the guests will likely have camera phones, but we know how well that works out.
The Vogue justification of this and its other claims seems to be following the faux trend of everything needing to be understated to the point of nonexistence, because extravagance, or simply taking a serious day seriously, is passé. I find that attitude so tiresome. A wedding is not a competition to show how much of a nonevent it is. The author asserts that we should dispense with the honeymoon, rings, and even the first dance, because "twirling around to a waltz as if you’re in a Viennese ballroom circa 1932" is "bizarre." I've been to a fair amount of weddings, and not once has the first dance been a waltz. Most couples have a song that's special to them, and that's what this entire day is about; it's a succession of special moments that celebrate a couple's love, even if that special piece of music is indeed a waltz. That being said, if you don't want to have a first dance, who cares? It's your wedding. Do it for you, not for the need to subscribe to the nouveau-chic idea of nothing being noteworthy anymore.
Let me put my photographer suit back on. The most obvious argument for hiring a professional is having professional equipment and experience. I'm preaching to the choir a bit here, but weddings are really tough to photograph. They're fast-paced, they demand technical and artistic prowess and efficiency, and they are notorious for offering terrible lighting conditions. Does your iPhone go to ISO 6,400 or sync a couple of off-cameras flashes? If your guests brought their DSLR, do they really know how to use it? You're taking quite the gamble on getting even decipherable pictures. And really, 20 years down the road, when you're showing your children or close friends what your wedding day was like, what do you think will convey the experience more adeptly: a blurry camera phone shot (by then, the quality from that camera phone will be horrendously outdated and likely tacky anyway), or a carefully crafted set of pictures that clearly, artistically, and unobtrusively capture a special day in its full elegance? Do you really want 200 guests clamoring and jostling over each other to get that shot anyway? Isn't that the point of a professional photographer — someone who is not only trained, but emotionally removed from the couple and thus, free to perform duties without worrying about missing the experience?
Sorry, but you just can't produce this with a phone.
A wedding is a rapid-fire day of memorable minutiae punctuated by special moments. Even as the bride or groom, you might miss a lot of those moments; half the joy of receiving wedding photos is being surprised by those that you didn't see as they happened. Furthermore, a decade or three down the road, you'll want to remember those details. You'll want to remember exactly how those flowers you spent hours putting together looked. You'll want to remember exactly how you were gazing at each other during the first dance. This is what good photography does; it preserves every detail so you can relive that experience whenever you so desire. It transports you to that very point in time, just like the professionally shot photo of a bride posing with her bridesmaids (banned by the list) that ironically graces the top of the Vogue article.
And so when Vogue claims that having a professional photographer "detracts" from "true love," I claim that they couldn't be more wrong. If you're celebrating true love, show it the requisite respect that honors the magnitude of a once-in-a-lifetime event that celebrates such a deep and meaningful connection by having it captured in its full glory. Don't treat it like any other day, because it's not any other day. You only get one chance at this.
I read the article in Vogue, the day after they had contacted me as a professional wedding photographer inviting me to appear in a paid article with them.
This magazine hires the worlds best fashion photographers, it sells because of its artistry in photography, it's visual impact is immense, and to see an article telling it's brides to ditch a professional photographer was astonishing.
The author apparently creates wedding gowns, I saw no mention of the idea of purchasing a cheap second hand gown in order to express your love with minimal fuss.
Ultimately for each couple, what they spend their wedding budget on, comes down to personal priorities.
But for a magazine which depends so much on outstanding skills and vision of outstanding photographers it did seem like a terrible faux pas.
I replied to their article on their FB page with my own take on professional wedding photography.
http://www.lightofathousandstars.co.uk/2015/11/youre-paying-how-much-for...
Ultimately the Vogue advice was ill thought out. I do wonder what their colleagues at Brides thought, given they rely so much on professional wedding photographers to fill their pages. Perhaps they are relishing the idea of drunken photos taken on an iphone on their pages now?
Great article and points, Catherine! I'm quite surprised to hear of your experience. Have you been in further contact with them?
This is why I always call it Vague. Magazine. Horrible shallow self centered narcissists and a worthless publication.
Vogue should follow their own advice.
1) Kill the magazine since everything is online. Who buys magazines these days? That's so yesterday. Everything is online!
2) Get a homeless guy off the street, give them a disposable film camera to do the photo shoots for Vogue; don't give them an iPhone or smartphone since they'll probably pawn it for booze.
Ooops! Annie Lebowitz is out of a job.
After getting our photos back, I wish I hadn't hired a "professional" to photograph our wedding.
Ouch ... I have a friend who got married recently (end of 2015) she just got her images.
She is a photographer as well (really solid photographer) and she hired a friend to do the photography (at the tune of 2K$).
the images are HORRIBLE. She sent me a PDF of the contact sheets and I just couldn't believe how bad they were.
Bridal party coming down the aisle shot with one strobe at a 90 degree angle (+/-) from the camera at shoulder height with a medium soft box at full power with no ambient really hitting the sensor (due to shutter speed and ISO) ... If the photographer didn't hit the mark perfectly , the subject was out of the light pattern and even if she did hit the mark perfectly the light was all coming from one side with no fill or bounce on the other leading to a very dark half lit shot.
She also was shooting these so wide that you could see the light pattern on the floor, it MIGHT have worked as a very dark, lowkey portrait if she had filled the frame with the subject ... MAYBE.
Most of the shots were poorly lit (with huge enlinchrome strobes) leaving the main area over exposed and the crowd in complete darkness at a nice museum venue ...
the ambient light levels were so low that you didn;t know where she was shooting this. Everything other than in a small tight area was pitch black.
The framing and composition were pure garbage as well.
I wish I could show some examples but I don;t want to betray the brides trust in showing these to me.
The question for you, is did you get a pro or someone claiming to be a pro? Did they have a good portfolio? Was it a legit portfolio and not stolen from other photographers (that happens ... ALOT)? Were the iamges you were shown in your consultation and on his/her website equivalent to what you received?
Utah is full of soccer moms with digital Rebels shooting $300 weddings. We went to a bridal show, and there were only two studios that were even decent. Of the two, we chose the one with the better portfolio. My understanding is that it was run by two guys, and they just put the studio name on all their images. So we must have gotten the crappier of the two that day. Their follow up and customer service sucked too. Where I come from, everyone gets a handwritten thank you card after an event. We got a disc with mediocre photos. Never even bothered to get prints made, despite the fact that we had a credit with them. It was between $1,500 and $2k. I couldn't tell you the exact amount, because I'd rather not look it up and be reminded.
My previous wedding was shot by my assistant. I gave her my camera, and pretty much directed her the whole time, calling out focal length, exposure and flash settings. That was with film, and she did a better job than the digital guy. There was something very appropriate about how we did that. It just fit our wedding.
I love reading the comments on articles like this. You wedding photogs get your panties in such knots for everything! It really is entertaining!
Thank you!
Technically they're right. Technically you don't even have to get married either. Yolo.
I'm facsinated by the new era of "you don't need a professional anything these days".
Sick? Web-MD.
Wedding? Uncle with 60d and a lens.
Food? Just mimick the food channels and you'll be running your own food truck in a year.
Mechanic? Just use youtube and a wrench.
WTF? I mean YES i've google the occasional "How-to", we all did (photographers probably more than others) but that doesn't make me a qualified MUA, chef or mechanic!!!??
The way I see it, when you hire pros you pay for the insurance that things will go smoothly.
If you can live with the fack that your uncle got 1-2 IPAs too drunk and your wedding photo are ruined, then be my guest and pass on the Pros.
But don't compare it. PLEASE...
TL;DR: access to information and techniques doesn't make grant you experience.
Simon, you're exactly right.
It gets even more ridiculous because the uncle with the 60D + lens probably bought it on credit. There's a whole generation of do-it-yourself types that have actually gone into deep debt for the privilege of being nothing but hacks.
I'm always happy to step in and bail them out. A lot of my gear was purchased in "like new" condition from people that rarely used it. Of course, I bought my 60D new, and sold it two years later with about 2,000 clicks on it. That was a camera I just couldn't love.
I have a photographer friend who just got married ... she asked a ameteur photographer friend of hers if she would do the photography ... she texted me these exact words after months of hassling the photographer for the images.
"I was better off without the images" ... youch.
I'm sorry to say this but if your friend was a photographer, he wouldn't have hired an amateur...
What possessed him/her to do this?
She is and she is amazing at it but I have no idea what went through her head. She just posted some of ghe images ... I can't believ how bad they are ... just texted her to confirm those are from the photogeapher and not just images from drunken guests (as recommended by vogue).
Only seen reception shots.
#Asrecommendedbyvogue should be a thing. Definetely.
ok ... everyone get pictures from guests at your weddings (with their permission of course) and start posting #asrecommendedbyvogue LOL
Let's shame vogue into printing a retraction.
Just retweeting bad wedding pics with this handle would be enough to get their attention! hahaha
OK, True story...
When We got married, I had my photography professor take the wedding pictures. The wedding was at my college chapel (I was graduating in a couple of weeks). Well, he gave me the negatives after developing them (this was 1976 after all).
Fast forward to the end of the summer when we moved from Winona, MN to Minneapolis where we were to start our new jobs. to our horror, we couldn't find the negatives anywhere! What we were left with are the picture from my wife's sister's instamatic. WE can make out who the participants were, but my son still thinks that the wedding never happened... Not conclusive proof.
While we treasure the 5 or six pictures that we do have, blurry as they are, we know the professionally shot pics would have been much better and more meaningful. Interesting that Vogue, a pillar of stellar photography for generations, would not understand the value.
Vogue article = clickbait
Man ... I was at my wifes cousins (can you say cousin-in-law ??? is that a thing?) wedding this summer. Brought my 5DMk2 and one lens and one flash. Made sure I wasn't in the way of the hired photographers / videographer, mostly took photos of my father in law, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law ... who were there and left the heavy lifting to the official photographers.
The couple had a sign asking people to post photos of the night during the night ... the difference between shots I took and shots people took with their phone were day and night (I wasn;t really trying and I was slightly inebriated as well) obviously.
See the attached photo to illustrate my point. It's a picture of my brother in law (or rather brother in law, in law as he is my wife's brother in law ... anyways) taking a picture of 2 of my sister in laws using his cellphone.
The room was ringed with purple LED lights and was dimly lit ... ignoring all other considerations (composition, framing, posing) .... there just is no way that a cellphone is going to produce anything other than complete crap in those conditions! At least with my high powered flash I could bounce off the ceiling and over power the low powered LEDs but the cellphone had no chance.
Cellphones CAN generate decent results in ideal conditions but not in the ridiculous conditions we see at a wedding.
end:rant
BTW, Vogue already did fashion shoots with an iPhone http://www.vogue.com/867316/vogueinstafashion-our-first-instagram-photo-... and runways too http://www.vogue.com/13349393/iphone-6s-nyfw-photo-diary-kevin-lu/ Despite what the photographers' community is thinking, this will happen more & more. Even as tests by photographers.
My heart goes out to anyone that has chosen Wedding Photography as a profession. You are now finding yourself in exactly the wrong place at exactly the wrong time. When "Auto" killed the light meter, everybody overnight knew somebody that was a "Photographer". In a post iPhone landscape, now litterally everyone is a "Photographer". There will always be work and real dollars at the top 1/10th of a present. Those that are well established, that will set a price and ruthlessly stick to it. The rest are going to be mercilessly beaten down by the housewife with a rebel willing to do it for $100.
I believe that the Vogue writer who authored this piece also runs a fashion shop and doesn't list an expensive dress or fancy suit as one of the things a wedding an go without...
This is true. You do NOT need a professional photographer. Although one should not expect your wedding day to be captured in a beautiful way. Why not make an article that says ... You don't need a kitchen to cook a meal..just a microwave. I can keep going.
I can't believe that they are spreading such non-sense; that any person who has instagram, facebook or other social media and a phone with camera is now as good as pro. I had my own wedding last July. I seriously doubt guests could do even a close of a job our photographers and videographers did. We hired a photography firm that specialises in weddings and pre-weds. Professional photographer's experience and guidance is quite important and it really did put at us at ease and we do not regret it.
*Vogue article is written by Molly Guy who owns Stone Fox Bride, a "low-key, high-fashion wedding showroom located in downtown New York City"*
*Uses professional wedding pictures for their twitter, website and blog*
I literally don't understand how these people get to write for Vogue.
And here are her other articles.
http://www.vogue.com/contributor/molly-guy/
No they are so right, now that people have iphone5 or 6 I can't remember, Vogue shouldn't be needing the services of professional photographers, even better no more models or famous brands advertisement. I am so looking forward to discovering Vogue new formula with pics sent from readers (better yet submitted via facebook whatsapp or instagram), advertising the local chinese shop and their amazing selection of pyjamas on sale. People, this is happening, of course professional photographers are needed especially for a wedding (we got married long before becoming photographers, with no budget for a photographer and our wedding photo album consists of 3 or 4 poorly focused underexposed photographs). But this is happening, people are confident enough now in their phones and GoPro to be heroes and they satisfy themselves with the images they get from that. Almost everyday I meet people who look down at my Nikon D4s and explain to me they are photographers too and took better photographs of their niece's wedding with their hybrid that the pro-photographer. Our own family is gently turning us down for their wedding because of the price. And recently a surfer explained to me why he's better off with his own GoPro video for free than paying a little to get shots from a pro with a D4s, a prime lens and a splash housing. People, I think we should all move from wedding to porn, that will be the only and last area where people will actually get to notice the difference between a poorly taken snapshot (damn it there is much light) and a professional work. What a load of bullcrap !
This is thread is like a group of turkeys trying to stop Christmas from happening by pretending it doesn't exist; the denial is so strong that you could float a pharoah's barge on it.
Let's look at some very relevant facts that are being neglected:
1. The couple are not relying on a single amateur to replace a professional but, possibly, dozens of them. With that many shots, taken from a greater number of angles than a pro could manage, to choose from, then yes, it's very possible the best shots will be as good as a pro's. Oh, maybe not technically - but impact and emotion-wise, while being technically adequate, yes.
2. Newspapers that have fired their photographers and replaced them with with submissions from amateurs have not collapsed or suffered a loss in circulation; the pictures have been good enough.
You don't have to like this, but to pretend it's not happening is silly. You don't have to agree with 1. either - but ignoring it, the way the author of the article did and all commenters seem to have done is even sillier - it's the main point that really does need considering. Photography is a game of skill, yes, but it's also a game of opportunity - and a horde of volunteers will have dozens of times the opportunities that a single pro would have.
The future of the world probably has a lot fewer professional photographers in it - and the ones who survive will be the ones who have thought through the changes coming and found viable niches rather than those trying to protect themselves with the Magical Power Of Denial. For example, what *style* of wedding photography is most likely to appeal to couples who don't want to rely on amateurs?
(Also: re handing out your own cameras so the pictures don't end up on social media, the author of the article can't read. The point is that is what would happen if the guests used their own damn phones, not if you hired a pro. Tolerably easy to understand, I think.)
I haven't read the article… yet. But in reality what defines a "professional wedding photographer" nowadays? I mean anyone can pick up a DSLR and claim to be one. There are no laws to prevent them from doing so. They're basically labelling themselves with the same label as the photographer with an actual education in photography + countless professional seminars & workshops + accreditations from professional associations. Not sure why anyone would be up in arms with this article… It just doesn't surprise me!
I agree with this article more and more every time you read it. Photography is a completely necessary expense at a wedding. This is not a bad thing for photographers.
It is about time more of us realize that wedding photography is a luxury not a necessity and treat it accordingly.
I am a photographer, so biased.. but I also LOVE great images.. of everything (including weddings). If two people want to REALLY make it all about true love, then get rid of EVERYTHING EXCEPT the photographer ! Elope to someplace amazing, bring an amazing photographer.. and just get married and enjoy each other.
I have seen it done and it is so beautiful and moving.
Most can't go that extreme.. but my opinion, a good photographer is not something you want to eliminate.
I don't see anything really wrong with the article. I can agree with much of what was written as I understand the general sentiment of brides/couples these days. I am wedding photographer and have photographed hundreds of weddings, I've seen it all and I agree to the tone of some of what was mentioned. Not all hold to the traditional ways and many have done much of what the article mentions.
Couples are making it there own more and more often and some still value traditions, I don't see this article having a huge influence to impact couples more than it has snubbed photographers. They are pretty vague on the don't hire a wedding photographer. Couples that hire me, hire me for the "wow" factor, the relationship, and creating great work for them that stands out. They know the difference between phonegraphers and professionals.
I'm siding with Vogue on this one. I believe vogue understands that the face of photography is changing and it is the masses of so called professional photographers that can not accept this. Photos for newspapers and magazines are a dead industry, wedding photography will follow suit for the exact same reason. Regardless of how crappy they look People are learning that the photos they take are much more special emotionally because they took them than photos by a professional photographer. It would have been the same back in the day, except film was much harder to produce even remotely well. The other side of this coin is now that literally everything is being photographed, there is absolutely nothing left to the imagination, thus all the mystery and magic is lost in that special day because every detail is available. Who reading this has gone to a concert and intentionally left their camera at home? It's a much better experience when your not obsessed with "getting the shot" isn't it? I'm sure the performer appreciates not having a camera in their face for their own positive experience/performance. And I'm sure the wedding couple feels exactly the same.
I for one believe equipment and experience will get better photos of the event,but....
where I think things are getting out of hand with pro's is the desire to have many photos of scenarios that just did not or would not exist on the wedding day if it weren't for the pro photographer feeling the need to increase the amount of quality shots.
Bridesmaids running around on the beach in their gowns getting sandy? Groomsmen walking on dusty trails working up a sweat for the scenic outdoor shot? Not really reflections of the actual wedding event.
Vogue I think is saying multiple people at the event with cameras actually capture live an real events, even though the quality might be sub-par. That I think is the learning from this if there is any.
"That Exotic Island Honeymoon...you don't need a professional pilot"
"Publish Your Own Magazine....you don't need professional writers"
The possibilities are endless.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BAY2UW8LcXZ/?taken-by=steph_xxoo
I totally agree with Alex Cooke. I think that Vogue is just looking for publicity.
I have 2 comments:
1) Should you also drop having professional caterers or even dress makers? After all most people can make a sandwich, so why don't we just ask the "guests" to bring a plate with some food? Same goes for photographers, who have many years of training (usually), and advanced equipment and a knowledge of how to use them and how to set up people for good photos.
2) I think Vogue should stop publishing pro photos in their magazine, and just use phone snaps submitted by the public. We will see if the quality of the magazine goes up or down!
I see the idea Vogue propagates. And I am in agreement knowing the high cost of weddings these days. The disruptive technology in smartphones, etc is resulting in me taking a second look what I do in my work flow. My thinking the wedding party is over and only "high end" wedding photographers will prosper. So I do second (divorced) weddings. I give them a digital footprint and some fun stuff. I all ways under promise and over deliver. Its works for me. Of course, I am 69 so I am not "building a business" either.
Nice article. I was just poking around on the web and stumbled on it.