p.2 #1 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
Depth of Feel wrote:
I am pretty over first looks. I want to come up with something to take it's place but right now the first look ranks itself with signing the marriage license for me. I wish it wasn't so cheesy.
I dunno man... I believe in first looks not for the trendiness of it but because of the single intimate moment it affords the couple for the wedding day before the reception is over and for the way it lets us shoot portraits without keeping people waiting during the cocktail hour, and the couple can actually enjoy their cocktail hour.
p.2 #2 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
Depth of Feel wrote:
I am pretty over first looks. I want to come up with something to take it's place but right now the first look ranks itself with signing the marriage license for me. I wish it wasn't so cheesy.
p.2 #4 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
The author is a total waste of time. Look at her web site for her business. Filled with photos, obviously taken by pro's, of brides/grooms, ads for wedding rings, dresses, etc. Her very business is 100% opposite of everything she said. Vogue is obviously in need of articles to fill space.
p.2 #5 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
davenfl wrote:
The author is a total waste of time. Look at her web site for her business. Filled with photos, obviously taken by pro's, of brides/grooms, ads for wedding rings, dresses, etc. Her very business is 100% opposite of everything she said. Vogue is obviously in need of articles to fill space.
Dave
Sometimes they will specifically write articles and lists with things they know people will be upset about it. It drives traffic which in turn translates to ad revenue. It's not about producing quality anymore, unless the advertisers get sick of their tactics and pull because the ROI on ads for such shitty content must be abysmal.
p.2 #6 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
glort wrote:
And what is with the white thing?
To uphold some outdated and now ridiculous notion you are pure and virginal and haven't been doing the horizontal hoola like a pair of rabbits on aphrodisiacs and getting up to all kinds of freaky shit since your 2nd date... if you even waited that long to play hide the salami?
Yeah, pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.
Does anyone else here think this is one of the funniest things ever written on this site? Its Jan 12, and I nominate this entire post "post of the year"
p.2 #7 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
The couples I work with lately have comfortable relationships. They know what their bride is going to look like sunday morning and no amount of makeup and dress is going to confuse them to who they are really marrying. 90 percent of the first looks I do the couple see each other then look at me within 30 seconds and say "ok now what?" Lately it has lacked the emotional drama. I am not doing it wrong. My couples are not doing it wrong. Some of my couples get ready together, and frankly I think that is sweeter and more genuine than these throwbacks to old traditions. Half the folks I work with share a bed the night before the wedding.
p.2 #8 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
Depth of Feel wrote:
The couples I work with lately have comfortable relationships. They know what their bride is going to look like sunday morning and no amount of makeup and dress is going to confuse them to who they are really marrying. 90 percent of the first looks I do the couple see each other then look at me within 30 seconds and say "ok now what?" Lately it has lacked the emotional drama. I am not doing it wrong. My couples are not doing it wrong. Some of my couples get ready together, and frankly I think that is sweeter and more genuine than these throwbacks to old traditions. Half the folks I work with share a bed the night before the wedding. ...Show more →
So... after that 30 seconds, you do your portraits and move on with the benefits of having done a first look? How does that make it cheesy? I would also encourage you to tell the groom beforehand that this is a great time to tell his bride-to-be how beautiful she looks, spin her around and take it all in, etc... talk about how excited they are to be getting married. If they don't want to do any of that, no worries, but they might just be nervous and not sure what you want them to be doing. Either way like I said, once they've seen each other, you move on. No need to build up the first look to be the most beautiful thing they'll ever be a part of in their lives or something outlandish, it's just a nice moment for them to share, embrace, kiss, whatever they want that moment to be, with a lot of logistical benefits generally resulting from it which will usually improve their wedding-day experience and give them more time with friends and family not to mention food and drink.
p.2 #10 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
nolaguy wrote:
...It suggests the author is more clever than the audience is confident...
I'm really not so sure that was her tactic. Google her. If you think that's how she writes 100% of the time, then you may be right. I think she's just a bent up twit.
dmacmillan wrote:
The writer tried to mask her feminism-gone-wrong attitude with humor. It didn't work well.
p.2 #11 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
Their version of Ken Rockwell...never be boring.
She got us photographers putting the link to her article on all the photographer websites - SEO bonus
She got us commenting on her article - double SEO bonus
She got us googling her past articles - triple SEO bonus
She got us talking about her in all our forums - SEO jackpot
The best thing we can do is just ignore her...give her the Klingon Discommendation.
nolaguy wrote:
After reading over several dozen of the comments on Vogue, I'm surprised so many photographers got their panties in a wad over such tripe.
It suggests the author is more clever than the audience is confident.
p.2 #12 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
Depth of Feel wrote:
The couples I work with lately have comfortable relationships. They know what their bride is going to look like sunday morning and no amount of makeup and dress is going to confuse them to who they are really marrying. 90 percent of the first looks I do the couple see each other then look at me within 30 seconds and say "ok now what?" Lately it has lacked the emotional drama. I am not doing it wrong. My couples are not doing it wrong. Some of my couples get ready together, and frankly I think that is sweeter and more genuine than these throwbacks to old traditions. Half the folks I work with share a bed the night before the wedding. ...Show more →
Since you appear to have low expectations of first looks .... it is affecting your clients expectations as well.
Besides Kurtis inputs ... I like to suggest the first look as good time to share something written down.
I also explain how I cover it photographically. Meaning I am not crawling all over them.
I allow them a quiet moment and some space.
The First look is not the be-all of wedding moments.... no (has potential though) ... but it can be a pretty cool moment.
I also like to move into some couple images while where are here.
p.2 #14 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
I'm curious, why does anyone hire a photographer to take photos of their wedding day?
What's the originating purpose?
Is it something beyond the now-normal, previously-rare concept of going to starbucks for rather expensive cups of coffee in the morning, midday or evening? i.e. a non-necessity marketed into becoming a social norm?
Florists and decorators and limos/transports and even DJs I understand, all providing some content to the day by way of appearance, convenience or MC/etc. But a photographer/videographer?...
p.2 #16 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
form wrote:
I'm curious, why does anyone hire a photographer to take photos of their wedding day?
What's the originating purpose?
It's an interesting question. I'm going to guess that back in the day it was just a super luxury thing to have. Some wealthy couple getting married, all decked out, the whole family there. Why not hire a photographer to take pictures. And after time I'm guessing it just became the norm. The same way diamonds weren't always the engagement stone. Things happens, they get trendy and a generation or two later it's tradition.
Jan 14, 2016 at 05:17 PM
glort Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #17 · Vogue Magazine says dont hire a photographer
form wrote:
I'm curious, why does anyone hire a photographer to take photos of their wedding day?
So their kids can look at them 20 years later and and say " Aww my Gawd, look at you then! I didn't know Crack had been around so long because you must have been smoking it when you decided on those outfits !!"
So you can remember who your first, 2nd, 3rd and 4th wives/ husbands were and what they looked like?
Hell, the whole thing has cost $75K so far, whats another $3k?
So the groom can realise how much hair he has lost over the years and the bride can look and wish to hell she could still get into that size dress?
Because their cousin/friend/Uncle Cletus with the good camera can't come to the wedding?
It Seemed like a good idea at the time?
Prove beyond all shadow of a doubt your kids opinion that they have the daggiest, most uncool parents in the whole wide world?
So they can wonder what the hell they were thinking to go through all that stress and carry on when they could have spent $1000 on food and grog and had a BBQ in the back yard and had an even better time?
There were no other old, pot bellied, Drunken guys available to hit on and repulse the bridesmaids?
Well what the hell would all those photographers have on their blogs if weddings weren't put on so they had something to photograph?
To realise years later, that had they had that Backyard barbie and put the money they or their parents blew on the wedding and all the price inflated vendors towards a home, they could have saved themselves years of sweat and stress after and would still probably be married saving them even more money on the Divorce?
So when your daughter gets married, you can show her exactly how she should have her wedding and something to copy exactly from when you insist on reliving the horror of your own big day vicariously?
Because without photo's, it never happened? ..... and even if it did, you were too stressed/ nervous/ drunk to remember it without Pics?
Grandma's Ipad is on the fritz, Again.
So you can realize later, that guy you both spent so much time talking to and is in the background of half the pics, wasn't a relative or friend of either of you even though you both thought he was from your other half's family and neither of you know who the fk he was?
To remind you of your lifes worst decisions..... which you have now repeated 3 more times?
Because when you got married, mobile phones were only for making and receiving calls?
So 20 years later, your wife can look at the pics and still be pissed off at you for some little insignificant thing she thinks you did wrong on the day like not smile "correctly" in that one shot out of the 3000 taken. That's proof you never really loved her!
Well, everyone else that got married had one!
So you are reminded that once you were young and happy? And deluded and had hope and looked forward to the future and.....
It was on the checklist in the bridal magazine.
Once upon a time.... Cameras were complicated, confusing things that had all sorts of difficult controls and settings like focusing and apertures and shutter speeds and required someone who had put in time and effort to learn the thing in order to make them work and you couldn't just point the things and press a button and get a pic like any idiot can do now.
And possibly the most important reason of all to have a photographer at your wedding.......
So the bride can take the pics to work afterwards to get her a bit more attention now the whole wedding production is over and one up every other bitch in the office as well as that unspoken thing of trying to secretly outdo their best friends no matter how much they really do love them.
