This past Saturday I got to take photos at a mutual friend’s wedding. I have taken photos at a wedding before, trying merely to add a few causal shots to compliment the efforts of a pro and his two assistants. I got a couple of nice pics of the kids, and a shot of my father-in-law that’s one of the best pictures I’ve ever taken, but watching the pros work from the relatively new perspective of someone who had recently gone to an event (okay, it was at a race track, not a church) and tried to take as good a collection of photos as possible, I decided that this type of photography was not for me.
It’s one thing to miss a shot when you’re trying to earn your living, as I would like very much to be able to do at the track some day. But it is something else to blow a shot of “you may kiss the bride.” If you miss that, it’s gone forever, and you might find yourself with an uncomfortable appreciation of the term, “Bridezilla.” Talk about pressure to get it right. Add to that pressure the often very challenging conditions: a ceremony inside a dark church, very little natural light to work with and requiring the use of a bright flash, which adds a distracting element to a very important event, and the necessity of moving intrusively around the participants, obstructing the views of the audience, and so on. Sometimes I think a wedding should be photographed like a football game; from the sidelines with a long, fast lens.
But what are you going to do when a friend calls to say a last minute change from ‘casual get together’ has turned into something that requires a dedicated cameraman? If the alternative is to have the soon-to-be-happy couple rely on the point-and-shoot snapshots of their guests, then you might have to nut it up and do your best.
I first wanted to make sure that my ‘clients’ had some idea of what they were going to get if I agreed. I gave them passwords to a few of the galleries on my web site so they could have a look at my work. But I don’t think they had a chance to look at my photos, because right after I emailed the link, the engaged couple experienced their first bank robbery.
I’m not kidding. They needed to do some bank stuff right away and the closest branch was in Oakland. As they waited their turn in line, a bank robber entered with a gun. Oh, and did I mention the bride is nine months pregnant? So I have no idea if they ever got around to looking at my website; knowing someone with a nice camera was available was likely all they needed to know at that point.
The mutual friend who had called me on the couple’s behalf, though, said they wanted me to do my thing. I got a few details and learned that the event would take place in the back yard of a home in the Napa Valley. So the weather in March would probably be good, and I wouldn’t need a flash for a dark church’s interior. (I’m all about natural light photography, which is another way of saying I completely suck with a flash. I’m glad I rented one before I blew $500 on something that makes my pictures look worse instead of better.)
Given that I am not a wedding photographer, though, I couldn’t in good faith charge them what a pro would charge. I shopped around a little bit and was amazed to find pro fees starting around $2,000 and zooming quickly to $4,500 and higher for a single day’s shoot and the accompanying image editing. Whoa. Suddenly I could see why some photographers accept the risks! Some of the prices I found didn’t include the costs of prints, either.
No big paycheck for me, though. I told our mutual friend I would take pictures of the guests and do my best with the ceremony, but that I was not the man to take on the posed formal shots some people like at weddings. I was assured that they just wanted casual photos of the guests, and I felt I could do that. It would be a learning experience and a favor to a friend in need, with a few bucks for expenses and some self-respect.
My first expense was supposed to be the rental of the wedding photographer’s not-so-secret weapon, a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. But my usual rental places had no available copies for that day, and this isn’t a piece of equipment you just cruise down to the camera shop and pick up unless you’re going to cruise there in your Lamborghini. So I compromised on the 135mm f/2L, a great lens that is faster, but that lacks the flexibility of the zoom. I still have my good friend Derek’s 70-200 F/4L, so between that, my 24-70 f/2.8L and the 135, I figured I’d be in good shape.
Though not in a dark church, the conditions were still quite challenging. Most of the people spent most of the time in direct sunlight, wearing sunglasses or squinting a lot. Though the backyard was picturesque, there was very little shade for the guests. And since it’s the eyes that make a portrait interesting, sunglasses and squinting are not good. Neither are harsh shadows, which nearly every face there wore most of the time. There was a short ceremony, and at that point I was living the life I so wish to avoid, moving in people’s way, trying to get close for good shots without being a huge nuisance. Since in life I usually try to attract as little attention as possible, I was not in my element. The bride had dark shadows on her face and the groom squinted into the sun. But I did the best I could given the situation and got a few keepers.
The best thing was that everyone at the event was very nice; it was truly a charming group of people. That didn’t mean they all wanted to have their photo taken, though. When you go to a wedding, I think you have to accept the likelihood of being in at least a few photographs, but that doesn’t mean you have to like it. And while some people are photogenic and even seem to come to life when looking into a camera, others freeze, cramp up, try for a smile but produce a scowl, or just look severely uncomfortable. These unfortunates almost always (I say this based on my vast experience of taking portraits ;-) ) look better when they don’t know they’re being photographed. Hence the power of the 70-200mm lens. The 135 is a fine portrait lens (and in my opinion a great alternative to the legendary 85mm f/1.2L, which costs twice as much at $1,800!), but being a fixed focal length, it requires some fast footwork if one wants to avoid a lot of cropping back on the computer. Some of the best photos I got were with this lens, but many of those required a good portion of the image to be cropped out because of where I happened to be standing when the photo op presented itself. If I’d been able to zoom in, well, it would’ve been nice.
The most enjoyable part for me was having so many great-looking kids to photograph, especially in a situation where I didn’t have to worry about parents wondering why a stranger was taking pictures of their children. (When I’m at the park with my daughter, I have to be very careful about photographing kids whose guardians I haven’t at least spoken to a bit. I have gotten a few suspicious looks, I’m sorry to say.) And the folks at this wedding have some great-looking kids.
Kids are funny about having their pictures taken. Some like it from the moment the camera appears, while others get scared away by the big lens (or the creepy guy holding it). Others find it a game. There was one girl there, nine or ten years old, I’d guess, who was one of these. We played photo-hide-and-seek several times as she tried to pop out and disappear faster than I could get the shot. She really helped me by enjoying her little game so much. Other kids came up from time to time to play the same game, and a child who is having fun gives the best faces to the camera. The best shots of the day were of the kids for whom playing this game with me was a fun thing to do.
Photographing kids is incredibly enjoyable if you have kids like that. It’s as challenging as shooting racing, but much more rewarding. A car or a motorcycle is merely that, at the end of the day. But a photograph of a pure emotion on a child’s face is really something.
So for my shutterbug friends who read this blog, here are a few tips I can offer based on the experience:
If you have to shoot a bride and groom, or some other important person, move your subject to good light at least once during the event. I regret not asking the bride and groom to move into the shade for a few minutes so I could get sweet light on them. I’m sure they would’ve done so, and appreciated the results had I had the courage to ask. This is my biggest regret of the day. I got some good photos of them, but I should have contrived the best light possible for at least a few minutes. I think it was a few unlucky responses I got earlier in the day that made me drop the ball on this one. I decided that they would definitely want photos of certain people, but the first few times I asked for a quick pose, some of these individuals were unfortunately of the group that simply don’t like their photos taken. I could see I was making them uncomfortable, so I pretty much stopped asking for photos unless directed to do so by the bride. I went back to hanging out by the best light and shooting whoever walked into it, rather like a hunter in a blind. Cowardly, I know!
To do an event like a wedding right, you could really use a second camera body. Just like at the track, a second body would’ve been a godsend. I was switching lenses frequently, and kept wishing I’d charged enough to pay for the rental of a second body. With the 24-70 on one and the 70-200 on the other, I’d have been quickly ready for just about any shot. I could have swapped the 135 for the 70-200 now and then and still had really good coverage. Until they make a tack-sharp 24-200 f/2.8, two bodies will be a huge benefit.
Be bold, or at least, don’t be shy. I now have a theory that the best wedding photographers don’t care if people like them or not. I’ve seen wedding shooters right up there on the altar as if they’re part of the family, pounding away with the flash, thinking that I could never do that. I could’ve gotten better shots of the ceremony had I not cared so much about being as unobtrusive as possible, though. I guess one needs to find a balance, but I probably should’ve been bolder for the sake of a good photo’s longevity. Being a pro instead of a mutual friend probably makes this easier, too. And if you’re charging $5,000, the bride and groom may want to see you doing whatever it takes to get great shots.
Keep your lens hood on, even if the light doesn’t demand it. One of the girls who was enjoying our try-to-take-my-picture game got a bit carried away and as I was photographing someone else, ran up and smacked my 24-70. It was a playful thing, but it knocked the hood off the end of the lens. Hoods don’t just prevent lens flare, they protect the glass, too!
If I had been charging the big dollar, I’d have tried to scout out the venue before hand. Had I then seen how harsh the light was going to be, I’d have brought my own umbrellas! For $5,000, I could make that happen. Bringing my own shade for people to bask in would’ve made a big difference. Or perhaps an assistant with a white golf umbrella would’ve been better. Those shy folks might have liked to have a few shots if it meant a break from the sun. Come to think of it, an assistant would’ve been brilliant.
Anyway, I don’t know if the newlyweds will like their photos or not. I really hope they do, because they’re very nice people who, in spite of the stress of the day, could not have been more courteous or friendlier to me and their guests. And I hope they like portraits of their friends’ kids, because they got a lot of those (including a couple of real beauties, if I say so myself). But in spite of the amazing fees some wedding photographers charge, I’m not going to follow that career path. Although, come to think of it, I learned so much on Saturday, I might be able to make it work for $5,000 plus $45 per 8 x 10 print …
