>One of the few avenues left to make a living in photography.
Yes, that's true, money in wedding photography is good.
>Creatively one of the most rewarding as you are faced with a multitude of venues, body shapes and situations.
>One of the most technically demanding requiring skills from multiple disciplines, everything from macro to large groups and in the best and shittiest light.
>Also requires tremendous interpersonal skills as well as strong time management
So does being a bank teller and it doesn't require you to purchase thousands of [currency] worth of gear just so you can fucking shoot shitty dressed people just because you suck at actually photographing anything that is not staged. Wedding photography is not photography and might as well be done with a phone, 99% of people want the photos as memory anyway and don't look at it as art.
And photography is supposed to be art. That's why /p/ has such an issue with wedding photography.
Clearly you haven't given this much thought.
As a wedding photographer you can work from grand country halls to city centre hotels. From teepees in a field to rooftop restaurants. You can have old brides, young brides, fat brides, thin brides. Brides with big noses or ears. And you have to make all of them look good. To utilise your surroundings and available light, to augment with your own light, to hide negative aspects and enhance the positive takes real skill.
With regards to the technical side think about the range of shots: up close details of the dress and jewelry, candid shots of the guests, groom portrait, bridal portrait, family group shots, architectural shots of the venue, shots of the food and table details. Most of these you have very little control over forcing you to adapt to the conditions rapidly. You have to be confident in your skills and equipment.
Now, I would agree that wedding photography is not art as art should be created without compromise. Believe me wedding photography is fraught with compromise.
But that doesn't mean it is worthless, to be good takes true skill and to dismiss because of some arbitrary stipulation of its worthiness makes you blinded by your own snobbery.
>photography is not photography
>photography is supposed to be art
I think I know what you meant to say, but you sure didn't articulate it well, hopefully your photogra... art is more clear and concise. Next time make some art to express your opinion instead! :DDDDDDDDDDDD
Also, true you get to work with a shit ton of people of different gender, colour, hairdo and whatnot. Okay I agree you are challenged to do light and to make everyone look good. But it's not as difficult as many other types of photography and in my opinion, people who do wedding photography are not photographers. They are in it just to make money, at least every wedding photographer I've met says that they are in it for the money. If you want your photography to represent art, then you will be against wedding photography being put on a pedestal, because it doesn't deserve to be glorified as much as it currently is (outside of the photographic community at least). But that's just my opinion.
I remember that 5y ago /p/ was very keen on wedding photography and commercial in general. There were "routines" for beginners on what to shoot, lighting diagrams etc. I guess those anons left /p/.
Every single photographer who 'made it' whom I've know, every single one has either worked with weddings or shitty photojournalism, for that are the jobs one can get regular payments. But is fairly known that wedding photography is not really a big deal, you only have to follow some guides and it'll turn alright.
5 years ago is a lot of time regarding fads. no one craves the "studio look" anymore. it looks tacky and outdated. now you have VSCO, prisms, and direct flash for that fake 80s feel. also weddings are a pita, no one enjoys weddings besides women.
Stop trying to defend it or justify/validate your career choice, it's making you look like an idiot.
It's photography by numbers, and only one step above street in terms of "i shoot it cause i have no ideas or ambition of my own". Maybe 0.5% of wedding photographers are doing anything worth looking at, and that's at a stretch.
Wedding photography is the worst, most boring way you can use a camera (for me). My dad was a pro for some time, until he started shooting weddings - it killed his passion so hard that even though he quit weddings like 5 years ago he still doesn't take any pictures with a DSLR.
On the other hand if you wanna make money of photography it's probably the easiest way to go and the best one if you lack creativity and are a "histogram master".
It's like when you want to be a painter, but end up drawing caricatures in the mall 5 bucks a piece.
> wedding photography is not art as art should be created without compromise. Believe me wedding photography is fraught with compromise.
Seems pretty clear to me.
>Not as difficult
I agree there, it is a bit of "a jack of all trades" situation with wedding photography. I would be interested to know what field of photography you consider the most difficult.
Personally I would go for any sort of conflict coverage. The emotional toil must be devastating. I remember reading an interview with a war photographer who said that it attracted people who were already broken.
I never said wedding photography should be "on a pedistal" just doesn't deserve the constant ragging it gets here.
I dare say wedding photography helped them "make it" - You learn to work with such diverse situations shooting weddings it gives you a lot of confidence.
I am not defending my choice as it needs no defence. I am making you question your opinions with rational argument. There is a difference.
Sorry your dad didn't have the balls to cut it. It can be a tough job and it takes some spine. Have you tried photographing weddings? I am going to guess you haven't because if you did you would realise how overly simplistic your "caricature" analogy is.
let me tell you why the fuck do I hate wedding photography. My brother was a bank worker when one day he said fuck this job ill go do some shit thats easier and it makes money. So he bought D600 and started shooting weddings. He was never into arts, and a total geaerfag. AND he has every weekend filled already for the 2016. Like WHAT the FUCK. Seriously. And thats just one example. I have other two friends who just in the middle of whatever decided they want to do wedding photoshit. From nowhere. Wedding photography is the most cancerous shit that has happend to taking snaps in a long time.
Wedding photography is related to artistic photography about as much as the guy I paid to paint my house is related to Michelangelo. And guess what. That's perfectly fine. They aren't TRYING to be artists, they're making money with a trade. The existence of a wedding photographer is in no way a threat or insult to anything anyone else wants to do. They are not competing with you; why are you competing with them?
The only reason to get upset is if you're dreaming of somehow making money by wandering around taking shapshots of store windows and strangers backs, and you're just waiting to be discovered, and you look over at someone actually making a living by realizing that they only way to get money is to take photos people are actually willing to pay for.
50% or more of photography is networking. You should ask for some lessons on how to leave your house more and talk to people. You get booked that way. You sound like a gearfag yourself. You care that much? You should be happy you and your brother can talk about photography together and not only on 4chan. Get over yourself faggot.
Because they are the pathetic crowd who can't get a proper job and throw a fit when others take this for what it is, a hobby. So, they don't see wedding photography as serious enough.
>I remember that 5y ago /p/ was very keen on wedding photography and commercial in general.
Nah, that was never the case. Wedding photography has always been a joke around here. We put together the pokemon snap list because occasionally some newb comes through in a panic because he agreed to do his friend's wedding for free but doesn't know what he's supposed to shoot.
Wedding photography in general is a joke because it attracts the lowest common denominator photographers who then parade around like they're the second coming of HCB. There can be some truly excellent photographs of weddings, but they are few and far between.
Yeah, I don't know why I said very keen, I guess I was sleepy, but it was somewhat common, especially commercial portraiture of girls (here in Br it's called "booking").
Wedding photography is something you do for money, not for experience, like party photography, newborn photography, sweet sixteen photography and such ... There's no shame in doing it for money, but let's be clear and acknowledge that's no challenge either. Faces are different, people are ugly, but most of them will be satisfied and think they look good if you take a portrait with a decent camera and a soft light -- standards are very low.
Almost like it's a "Job" and not a "passtime"
If it was a blast, full of people trying to create art, and have a good time, there wouldn't be any money in it.
It's like being a painter, but painting houses. Being a driver, but driving a taxi. You don't get into it because of the passion, or the art, or the other shit. It's a job. And there aren't really any wedding photographers out there claiming it's actually an artistic passion.
Are you stupid? You're listing multiple reasons as to why you think your chosen avenue of photography deserves more kudos that it gets. Sounds exactly like a defence to me.
No wonder you're stuck taking photos of wedding bullshit (probably very badly).
Be quiet, manchild.