Have people had disastrous results from amateurs shooting weddings? Really? On a scale of 1 - 10, how important is having photos of your wedding? One is not caring at all and 10 is very important. If you can answer the question as a one or two, then by all means get someone to do it for free via craigslist and have your two eleven year old nieces shoot back up. You need to be prepared that you'll have maybe one or two photos and be okay with that. If you're getting married outside and the reception is outside, you can increase your percentage of photos to maybe 10 %. Please realize that you've asked a pro if she thinks two eleven year olds who like to play with their cameras can do her job! This field is becoming very crowded with fresh faced, inexperienced people who like to take photos so they've decided to become wedding photographers (much like the craigslist ones, I'm sure). Churches and reception halls are like shooting in caves and all those folks that whip out their point and shoots (and now cellphones) to take images end up with photos that largely resemble caves (often you can sort of make out a sort of white dress in the cave). That being said, there are now a whole lot of "professionals" out there also turning in disastrous results because they don't know their cameras very well, have no experience lighting anything and have no idea how to shoot something that only happens once. I think there's a post earlier about the same topic (having friends shoot the wedding). I'm actually attending a wedding in a few weeks that only has friends shooting the wedding. Of course, the groom's a photo editor and all his buddies are professional shooters, so he's pretty sure he'll end up with a lot of 10's! I'll be curious to see what all the happily married folks out there have to say.
|
pro vs amateur
Linear Mode
