Wedding Photography a Dying Industry?

[Peter7100]

Technology will never trump vision & skill.

Interestingly I recently had a chance to experience a tech advantage over an older camera at my daughter's wedding. There was an official wedding photographer with two Z6 bodies. He was using Nikon 85mm 1.8 with an adaptor one one body and I took along my old D7100 with the exact same lens eg. Nikon 85 1.8.
As the father of the bride I didn't have the opportunity to take as many shots as he did, however there was occasions where we took the same shot. I was interested to see his results which I was recently able to download. I can say with confidence that there is no noticeable between his shots and mine. Did he have an advantage?...........I'm really not sure......maybe he could obtain eye focus quicker than me. However all the shots I compared were stationary shots therefore not sure it you could say that he did.
I have have also watched several videos that state Nikon mirrorless bodies are lacking behind in the autofocus capabilities of both Sony and Canon. I have no idea if this is true or not.
So my point is that maybe the newer eye focus will result in more keepers for stationary subjects but will it work any better than say a D850 or D500 for moving subjects.
I assume the Z9 and Z8 may be better than the earlier mirrorless bodies but unless eye focus is a must for someone, I'm not sure technology in this price band would have that much of an advantage for weddings.

 

[kevy73]

I've been a wedding photographer for a looooooooong time... ha... trends come and go and fads come and go - as do so called 'professionals' that buy an entry level camera, get 1 or 2 in focus pics of their kids or dogs and then tout themselves as a professional photographer.

I love the act of photography and if you understand a few things, it isn't as hard as it needs to be. Probably not the expected comment from someone who has made a living from photographing weddings. But it is true.

What I mean from that last statement is that anyone with a decent camera and lens can press a button and get a well exposed and focused image - the act or pressing the button is the easy part... but for me, that is only 5% of the job. My job is to make people WANT to be in a photo. My job is to look at a scene, work out where the light is best, what background is best, what pose might work for the couple or group and then communicate that to the people involved... and not just a direction of 'Go and stand over there'.... I go through how to stand, I have learned to make people feel comfortable in front of a camera - even actually WANT to be in front of the camera. To me, that is my skill and why Wedding Photography will never be a dying industry - sure there will always be people undercutting but you can't buy the ability to pose and communicate with and enthuse your subject....

 

[Dawg Pics]

@kevy73 Just for my own curiosity, what do you think of the recent trend of getting a tiny little couple (often backlit) on a huge landscape background? I know it is whatever the couple wants, but it seems like that style is being touted all over the place. I can see it for things like a moon shot or eclipse, but sometimes I see some of these images and wonder what they are thinking.
My Dad had an image like that where there was a tiny bride in front of a plantation home. It was a nice image, but you could have put a mannequin in a wig and nobody would have noticed the difference. I was surprised when he did that because one of his biggest gripes was a tiny subject.

 

[WaltE]

I have quite a different perspective. I don't shoot for money. I have the luxury of not needing my photography to produce income. I like to keep a project going at all times albeit at my pace. I have offered business I like (usually small home town start ups) a promo video or photo shoot with no charge. Most do not take advantage of the offer. I believe it to be a lot like entertainment. I've performed music my whole life and if a musical act does not have a price tag it is considered low quality just on that merit. If a group wants shows, they must charge. People are indoctrinated to getting what they "pay" for. Its interesting to me how choices are made.

 

[Fred Kingston]

I have at least a half-dozen good friends that are "Professional wedding" photographers. Folks whose sole income is "wedding photography"... To a person, they all agree that "wedding photography" is the most "cliche" art form there is. There are relatively speaking, 25 setup shots that are traditional and demanded by every bride. It's just a repetition of those same shots, over and over... It isn't because those photographers want to do the same things over and over, it's because that's what the market expects and demands...

It's the same as an artist that paints a unique painting... and then gets hired to paint houses all the same color... because he's a "painter".

I apologize in advance if this offends anyone...

 

[kevy73]

@kevy73 Just for my own curiosity, what do you think of the recent trend of getting a tiny little couple (often backlit) on a huge landscape background? I know it is whatever the couple wants, but it seems like that style is being touted all over the place. I can see it for things like a moon shot or eclipse, but sometimes I see some of these images and wonder what they are thinking.
My Dad had an image like that where there was a tiny bride in front of a plantation home. It was a nice image, but you could have put a mannequin in a wig and nobody would have noticed the difference. I was surprised when he did that because one of his biggest gripes was a tiny subject.

yeah I call them Where's Wally pictures.... if the background is AMAZING - like top of a mountain amazing, then I can see it's value - but to me it doesn't scream wedding photography... it screams more a landscape photographer that has taken to shooting weddings.

 

[kevy73]

I have at least a half-dozen good friends that are "Professional wedding" photographers. Folks whose sole income is "wedding photography"... To a person, they all agree that "wedding photography" is the most "cliche" art form there is. There are relatively speaking, 25 setup shots that are traditional and demanded by every bride. It's just a repetition of those same shots, over and over... It isn't because those photographers want to do the same things over and over, it's because that's what the market expects and demands...

It's the same as an artist that paints a unique painting... and then gets hired to paint houses all the same color... because he's a "painter".

I apologize in advance if this offends anyone...

No offense taken in the slightest... It does get very rinse and repeat at times.

 

[hark]

@Dawg Pics - I happen to like seeing *some* images taken with incredible vistas and the subject small, but if the subjects aren't clearly identified because they are too small, then no. But one or two images with a grand background as part of a wedding collection (with small enough people being recognized) is something I'd want.

 

[blackstar]

IMHO, anything that pleases anyone's eyes (or mind) can be considered beautiful to her/him.

 

[Dawg Pics]

yeah I call them Where's Wally pictures.... if the background is AMAZING - like top of a mountain amazing, then I can see it's value - but to me it doesn't scream wedding photography... it screams more a landscape photographer that has taken to shooting weddings.

Right on. I have seen some really nice images, but then there is a small couple kind of like, "You are here." Ha. I am sure if they are pleased with it, then that is what counts. I was just wondering what you thought about it as a wedding photographer.

 

[kevy73]

This is about as Where's Wally as it gets for me....