# What's Wrong With Wedding Photography (The Iceland Problem)



## rexbobcat (Nov 30, 2014)

Stirring the Pot!

The assertions in this blog post aren't exactly anything new, but it was so eloquently laid out that I thought I'd share it.

What&#8217;s wrong with wedding photography? (aka The Iceland Problem) | Ground Glass


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 30, 2014)

I have thought briefly about how I'd shoot a wedding. It goes like this:

We'll talk and hang out a bit, get to know one another, before the day. Maybe kick around some ideas.

On the day I'll show up with... Something. Could be anything.

I may or may not boss you around. If I brought a pinhole expect to be standing still a lot. But maybe I won't say a word. Depends on my concept.

Three months later or so I will offer you between zero and ten prints, no larger than 11x14. Probably black and white. $1000 each. Note that zero prints is an option. You pay nothing. But you also get nothing. The concept didn't work out. Sorry.

You think I could sell that?

Wedding photography is a commodity for excellent reasons. People don't want novelty for their wedding photos.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 1, 2014)

What do they want the same old crappy poses, when I look at wedding photos on here they look mostly the same and bore me senseless,  if I can find a link to this photographer that has gone back to film and is shooting a film called cinestill, I have turned down about 6 weddings this year  from people wanting their wedding shot on b+w film


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2014)

gsgary said:


> when I look at JUST ABOUT ANY FORUMS HERE (*edits mine, ll*) on here they look mostly the same and bore me senseless,



I liked this



> But for all that, no matter how stunning and how impressive, the question isn’t about how well you take the picture. The prettiness may make it all go down a hell of a lot easier, but *it will never be a replacement for what really matters: having something to say.*
> 
> Yes, pictures have improved. But as the haze lifts and the talent grows, what becomes clear is that *the plague of the wedding industry isn’t its sheer crappiness*. We’re finally starting to steer clear of that. *It’s the pervasive sameness* that has defined this industry from the start. Where craft is concerned, crappiness and sameness are worlds apart. But insofar as the art, heart, and soul of the medium goes, they remain one and the same.



And that goes for just about any area in photography.
I rarely see pictures here that aren't a copy of something seen before.
Yes, everything has been done, but the intent of the photographer and his or her idea should be the defining element that makes the old thing new.
If the photographer has nothing to say, then the pictures will be empty.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 2, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> The assertions in this blog post aren't exactly anything new, but it was so eloquently laid out that I thought I'd share it.



were they?


----------



## bribrius (Dec 2, 2014)

I think the only question would be I come up with... since when is a photographer such a ego maniac they think shooting a wedding is about them or what they have to say or their vision.
It is about the wedding, duh.
It doesn't matter if it looks like other wedding shots. The primary purpose is RECORD not art. Go pick up some pastels and spare you clients.
Rest of it I agree with. Just real tired of this personal spin on doing commercial work where the photographers personal issues seem to be the front and center rather than the actual job.

I liked the end of it, but I really couldn't equate that to shooting a wedding at all.  We have enough photographers stuck on themselves...


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 2, 2014)

Braineack said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > The assertions in this blog post aren't exactly anything new, but it was so eloquently laid out that I thought I'd share it.
> ...



Yes


----------



## RocketCowboy (Dec 2, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I think the only question would be I come up with... since when is a photographer such a ego maniac they think shooting a wedding is about them or what they have to say or their vision.
> It is about the wedding, duh.
> It doesn't matter if it looks like other wedding shots. The primary purpose is RECORD not art. Go pick up some pastels and spare you clients.
> Rest of it I agree with. Just real tired of this personal spin on doing commercial work where the photographers personal issues seem to be the front and center rather than the actual job.



Agreed! Unless the couple is looking for an artistic spin on their images, but that would be discussed up front before the photog is hired.


----------



## Overread (Dec 2, 2014)

It's important to remember that most customers don't want something new, innovative and different. They want the same things that they saw on your website/portfolio done for them. 

In addition its nearly always the case that if you take someone who views wedding photos in a larger quantity over a long period of time it becomes harder and harder to please them because its not just that every shot "has been done" its that they've "Seen every shot be done" and might even have done those shots themselves. 

They become almost a nightmare client requiring fresh, new, different ideas all the time. A very different client to the average wedding client who is likely only exposed to small snippets of wedding shots and might well have seen most of them in the period up to booking the photographer.



Certainly photographers should always aim to increase their skills and broaden their horizons as much as possible; but if they are working then they've still got to do their bread and butter.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 2, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I think the only question would be I come up with... since when is a photographer such a ego maniac they think shooting a wedding is about them or what they have to say or their vision.
> It is about the wedding, duh.
> It doesn't matter if it looks like other wedding shots. The primary purpose is RECORD not art. Go pick up some pastels and spare you clients.
> Rest of it I agree with. Just real tired of this personal spin on doing commercial work where the photographers personal issues seem to be the front and center rather than the actual job.
> ...



That's the problem he's talking about. The photographers are already stuck on themselves (not all of them of course, but many that show up on wedding blogs and such).

That's why we have wedding photos where the couple is the smallest thing in the composition. 

Why would the couple want a photo with a ton of seemingly pointless negative space? 

Obviously because it'll get the photographer lots of "likes" on Facebook.

Photographers are already an egotistical bunch, which is why all these wedding photographers seem to actively striving to take the exact same photos.

It's kind of like those "surreal" photographers on Flickr. They're all painfully  and glaringly derivative of each other, but aren't humble enough to admit it.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 2, 2014)

What's wrong with wedding photography?  Initial reaction would be nothing.

It's not you (wedding photography), it's me.......


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 2, 2014)

gsgary said:


> What do they want the same old crappy poses, when I look at wedding photos on here they look mostly the same and bore me senseless,  if I can find a link to this photographer that has gone back to film and is shooting a film called cinestill, I have turned down about 6 weddings this year  from people wanting their wedding shot on b+w film



so....
they want the same old crappy poses, just on B&W Film?
gotcha. 

I totally feel ya man..
i have that exact same feeling every time i look through the film section here. 
same old, same old.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 2, 2014)

I wouldn't shot a wedding like you see on here


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 2, 2014)

I will admit, and painfully so, that I have always harbored a bit of jealousy towards people that had a knack for shooting and developing their own film.  I did shoot a bit of film many many years ago, but it was always sent to the lab for developing. 
Every so not-very-often-at-all, I have a slight tingling urge to shoot a little film again, but then I go to the doctor and get some antibiotics and it clears right up. 
I rarely shoot for pleasure. Its almost entirely business for us. If im not getting paid, (or sometimes helping out a friend) I don't pick up the camera. 

I think there's a niche for pretty much any type of photography you can imagine. The hardest part is finding that target audience, and getting them to part with their money. I think you see a lot of the same "type" of shots done because thats what people typically expect to see, and for a large portion of people, NOT seeing those types of shots in their wedding photos would equal a disaster. 
I could go on with my usual rant about how i think a shooting "style" is just a pretentious buzzword....but its probably not applicable to this particular discussion.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 2, 2014)

I'm just going in the darkroom to make a print


----------



## Braineack (Dec 2, 2014)

> Why would the couple want a photo with a ton of seemingly pointless negative space?



Because the saw that same picture done, probably in the photographer's very own portfolio, and hired him/her to do the exact same thing.  And the photograph did it because that's what he was being paid to do.



rexbobcat said:


> Photographers are already an egotistical bunch, which is why all these wedding photographers seem to actively striving to take the exact same photos..



If they were truly egotists they would never strive to take the exact same photo as someone else.

Or, in the least, they would take photos for whatever reason they want.  If it's to make money, and taking that same picture over and over makes money, then that's what they'll do.

I still don't see why this is a "problem".



This is like complaining that a car wash doesn't wash your car with paint.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 2, 2014)

Braineack said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Photographers are already an egotistical bunch, which is why all these wedding photographers seem to actively striving to take the exact same photos..
> ...



Except that often their implied stance is that it's not the exact same photo. That seems pretty egotistical to me.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 2, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Except that often their implied stance is that it's not the exact same photo. That seems pretty egotistical to me.



delusional, maybe.  egotistical, no.


----------



## runnah (Dec 2, 2014)

This is somehow Bjork's fault, I just know it is!


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 2, 2014)

Braineack said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Except that often their implied stance is that it's not the exact same photo. That seems pretty egotistical to me.
> ...



I would consider not being able to own up to your own obvious derivatives to be quite egotistical. But whatever, believe what you want.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 2, 2014)

Braineack said:


> > Why would the couple want a photo with a ton of seemingly pointless negative space?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the saw that same picture done, probably in the photographer's very own portfolio, and hired him/her to do the exact same thing.  And the photograph did it because that's what he was being paid to do.



Ah, there it is.

That hasn't been my experience. As I was second shooting with photographers back home, I would see which photos the clients wanted the most. They rarely ever chose the photo of them being ant-sized in the frame. Generally, from what I can tell, these photos were often taken as blog fodder, because they're trendy and popular among people who...aren't the bride or groom...

They were never the photos asked to be printed either.

And they rarely ever showed up on the couple's social media.

Just because a photographer's portfolio has an instance of a specific type of photo doesn't mean that the client gives a rat's ass about that type of photo, as opposed to the photographer, who loves this photo because it feeds their craving for peer re-affirmation.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 2, 2014)

then the problem is shooting for other people and not yourself.  the end.  This can be true in any situation, not just wedding photography.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 2, 2014)

This is the film you want for wedding photography
CineStill Film: July 2013


----------



## Paul Josaph (Dec 3, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I have thought briefly about how I'd shoot a wedding. It goes like this:
> 
> We'll talk and hang out a bit, get to know one another, before the day. Maybe kick around some ideas.
> 
> ...



wow mesmerizing information..


----------



## Bobby Ironsights (Dec 15, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



No. It shouldn't take so long to say "dare to be different". I'm underwhelmed.


----------



## Scoody (Dec 15, 2014)

I shot a wedding over the weekend and I am sure I will never shoot another one like it.

The Wedding Cakes.






The Bride.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Dec 15, 2014)

Wedding photography_ is_ a commodity.  Social media makes it even more so as clients pass around "inspiratonal" images and ideas that they want for their weddings.   Just looks at the Converse shoe trend, the "wedding party jumping" trend, the "country chic" decor trend, etc, etc.  While I think wearing Converse All-Stars is tacky and overdone, just the other day I was talking to a girl whose cousin just got married.  Guess what she thought the coolest thing ever was?  Yep, that the entire wedding party rocked the Chuck Taylors with their suits and gowns.  She had never seen it.  For her it was novel, and that's likely how it is for most brides (let's face it, we know the groom doesn't have a say).  This is why we see the same tired yet pretty shots over and over again.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 15, 2014)

bribrius said:


> I think the only question would be I come up with... since when is a photographer such a ego maniac they think shooting a wedding is about them or what they have to say or their vision.



Wow..do you even read this forum?  Rotfl



> It doesn't matter if it looks like other wedding shots. The primary purpose is RECORD not art. Go pick up some pastels and spare you clients.
> Rest of it I agree with. Just real tired of this personal spin on doing commercial work where the photographers personal issues seem to be the front and center rather than the actual job.



Which is one of several reasons why I'm firmly committed to maintaining my amateur status.  But I can't disagree with the thought process here.  When someone is paying you for pictures it's about what they want, not so much about what you might like - and when it comes to commercial, well tried and true is generally what sells.


----------



## Didereaux (Dec 15, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Stirring the Pot!
> 
> The assertions in this blog post aren't exactly anything new, but it was so eloquently laid out that I thought I'd share it.
> 
> What&#8217;s wrong with wedding photography? (aka The Iceland Problem) | Ground Glass




That article needs to be chiseled in stone and hung on a fine thread over every single wedding photographers head until such time as they finally 'get' it.  Superb article.  Kudos, and many thanks for finding and posting.


----------



## Paul Josaph (Dec 16, 2014)

yup i also thought so.


rexbobcat said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



so


----------



## dennybeall (Dec 23, 2014)

It's not about you. IT"S NOT ABOUT YOU!
*IT"S NOT ABOUT YOU!!!!*
Really guys it's about the Bride and Groom and what they want. If you want to be creative then take pictures for a gallery or for sale at shows or set up with models.
It's great to be a creative person and help the couple to document their wedding in a unique way, but THEIR way not Your way.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 23, 2014)

I think there's room for a creative in the business. Not every wedding photographer should be, but surely there's room for some.

Everyone claims that they have a unique vision, and that their clients come to them because of that unique vision. Why not make it true? I think this is really the point of the piece.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 23, 2014)

dennybeall said:


> It's not about you. IT"S NOT ABOUT YOU!
> *IT"S NOT ABOUT YOU!!!!*



Ok, well as long as it's all about me.  Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get to my Narcissist anonymous meeting.


----------

