Every now and then, because someone has a nice camera and only posts decent to nice photos on their websites, maybe even gotten published in a few magazines, people have the misconception that such folks are able and willing to take photos of just about anything. Like weddings.
I recently became aware of a couple who falls into this category. They were approached by a future wife to shoot a wedding coming up in a few weeks. They carefully declined and, after a few back and forths, it seemed the thing was settled. The future husband, who is family, then stated that the couple was needed to do the photos and pretty much, that's that. The couple, who were originally invited to the wedding, are now captive photographers who can't enjoy it. Of course, this was muted by "it'll be laid back, no worries." Taking photos of someone's wedding is not laid-back. Especially when you care about the couple getting married.
Obviously this did not settle well, but the newly-appointed photographers said fine, I mean, what are they supposed to do? It's family, it's just a few photos in the grand scheme of things, right?
For anyone out there who'd like to put their beloved "guests" in the same position, please consider the feelings of said "guests." Photography is an art mixed with skill. It is also very dependent on lighting and experience. Even people who routinely photograph people have trouble with weddings because they are a once-in-a-lifetime event. The photographer will be intruding into others' spaces, they will be swapping equipment to get the best shot they can, they are limited to whatever equipment they have, and there will be constant worry about conditions such as rain, lighting, clouds, etc. This is not a light-hearted request. It is a nightmare. The "laid-back" approach is anything but: The photographer formerly known as guest is no longer a guest, but a ball of worry rather than someone who gets to enjoy a wedding.
A couple of our friends had insisted we take photos of their wedding. I firmly told them no. We would of course /take/ photos if they permitted it, but they could not and would not expect us to do the entire thing. Our photos came out great, of course - the weather was exceptionally beautiful - but they never really "got" that we were not "it" and kept insisting we do additional stuff. I happened to be "in" the wedding party, as well, and up until the day of the wedding, they didn't seem to understand that if you're in the wedding party, you are not going to be taking pictures. I did, however, have to run around taking photos before and after, however, and Dale had to take photos of the whole event. He was a wreck, I was a wreck, but we managed to enjoy ourselves somehow. It's not an experience I'd like to repeat, though. So I feel for the couple I've described.
Dale and I took photos of our own wedding via timer. Unfortunately for us, it was very cloudy that day and while we're glad to have these photos, frankly, they came out like crap. The best thing they did was capture the moment. They are nothing I display, even if Dale does. I do look back at them to remember our day. That's all they do for me, though. I had the presence of mind, thankfully, to insist on additional photos in the house where the flash would be effective and posing would work. These came out nicely. The long and short of it is: I've seen both ends of this massacre.
For something that is supposed to now be based on love, I don't see why weddings are made to be so stressful for anyone other than hired help. Dale and I knew we didn't care for much planning, so we set the date six months later and got our shit worked out well in advance, involving as few people as we thought we could get away with. We didn't want the expense of a wedding, we didn't want people staring at us, and we didn't want to put anyone out. The two people we did invite were witnesses we apparently didn't even need. We're glad they were there and had said yes to hiking up the mountain, but if we'd known we didn't need witnesses, we probably wouldn't even have asked them.
I've read sites like this one that indicate a couple is being cheap by not hiring a photographer. They give good reasons as to why a professional is a good idea. They tell it from the side of "the budding photographer wants to take photos, please don't let them." They leave out the idea that someone asks them to take photos because they can't afford a professional photographer. Sorry, but I don't place such high importance on weddings that you should afford anything. If something is important to you, save for it. This American Dream thing where you should either be in debt or get something for nothing is really getting old. Why do people have to have everything now? Why can't people wait anymore?
It just seems to me that if you're going to invite someone to a wedding, you want them there because you care for them in some way, and they want to be there to be supportive. Stressing someone out doesn't seem like a spot to put someone in that wants to be supportive.
But then, it's just a few photos, right? And what do you say, no? Saying no means you can't enjoy the wedding, either, because everyone will despise you for being rude on the couple's big day. It shouldn't ever have come up, if you ask me.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the day I get to attend a wedding for people I care about where I get to attend the wedding. I hope that photographer couple gets this blessing someday, too.
~nv
No comments:
Post a Comment