This article on TechDirt about the future of wedding photography got me thinking: what would the wedding photographer of the future look like? Just off hand, I’m thinking about all those little disposable cameras that have become de rigeur to put on the tables at the reception. With digitals getting cheap enough, a wedding photographer could bring a couple dozen low-end point-and-shoots, then dump the contents on Flickr, tagged and bagged for perusal. Instead of hiring a photographer to take the only pictures, the wedding shooter becomes a facilitator for the whole event, as well as being the go-to guy for all those awful staged photos that everyone seems to want (which are almost as hackneyed as the rest of the industrial, assembly-line wedding).
But I’m not a wedding photographer. Any professional shooters out there with some seriously progressive ideas about the future of wedding photography—and how to keep making money from it?
Another Business Failing To Adjust: The Wedding Photographer [TechDirt]
Update: Eric Welch offers some interesting counter-point after the jump:
You know, I ve run into similar questions to yours for years. How are professionals going to be relevant when cameras are so easy to use?
It first came up, I m betting, when auto exposure hit the scene in the late ’70s (about the time I bought my first camera) with the Canon AE1.
And then when autofocus came about, who needs sports photographers any more? And at newspapers, they thought they could just give cameras to reporters and they could do away with the Prima Donna photojournalists who have all those bothersome ethics and standards, and need time to make photos. (I was one for 15 years.)
Over and over, along came new technologies, and each time ill-informed non-photographer asks why do we need trained photographers any more?
In a job interview with the photo editor of the Oregonian, he told me they would eventually be able to have people with the skill level of a trained chimp go to events and swing the camera around whatever event he or she was covering, be it a riot or a tea party. The photo editor back at the desk would make a selection from the random images (or video) streaming back to the paper. That was about the strangest expression of this crazy idea that I ve ever heard. And it pissed me off this guy was making five times as much money as I was back at a small Midwestern newspaper.
I ve had a lot of people tell me they can make great pictures now that they have these new-fangled whiz-bang cameras that can do all the work for them. But as Ansel Adams once said, “There is nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea.” Just because a camera can yield a properly focused, perfectly exposed photo, it s still a bunch of ones and zeros, or a little piece of gelatin on plastic unless the photographer making the picture knows what he or she is doing!
I know a lot of cheesy photography passes for professional wedding photography. But that s because people are bargain hunters and will believe any dork with a camera when they tell them they can take photos of their weddings. Look at the work of Denis Reggie ( http://www.denisreggie.net/about.html ) and tell me if disposable cameras tossed around the room, operated by the equivalent of trained chimps, could capture those photos.
Yes, there is plenty of work for good wedding photographers in the future. And the people who don t want to pay for their skills will get fuzzy photos.
Then, Eitan Mendelowitz writes:
I’m not a professional shooter but I am getting married in a few months. After meeting with countless wedding photographers, I can tell you (1) they are already adapting to the new realities and (2) they will definitely be making money.
Many photographers are starting to shoot digital. This cuts down on film and processing cost (which are significant when you are talking about 20+ rolls of quality film and development). Even those that aren’t shooting in digital are having their negatives scanned so they can use a service like PICtage (http://www.pictage.com) – similar to your Flickr idea. Pictage seems like a service to customers – everyone can see all the pictures quickly. But to the photographer its a new revenue stream – ANY GUEST can now order pictures at a premium (and who wouldn’t spend $10 to get a picture of aunt Birtha in that ridiculous hat). And digital printing is less work – touching up a photo in photoshop is a to quicker then heading into the darkroom. Most photographers guard the negatives/hi-res files, releasing them to their clients only after a few years or for a fee guaranteeing a revenue stream from extra photo orders. (How this became an accepted industry practice is beyond me.)
Wedding photographers will keep making money because the Wedding Industry has managed to make spending an abnormal amount of money normal. Many brides and grooms (and/or their parents) don’t think twice about dropping tens of thousands of dollars on a day. A photographer only needs a little bit of that big pie to do well.
Finally, I agree with Eric Welch. I took just enough photography in high school to learn that a good camera does not make a good photographer. I’m sure enough people will continue to recognize this to keep photographers in business for a long time.
