Interesting article on the business of wedding/model photography

I agree with the following points:
1. It's more about equipment than we'd like to admit.
True. If I didn't have my fast lenses, I won't know how to take dark church ceremony or reception pictures.

3. Many times, sadly, it doesn't even matter if your photos are all that good or not.
Because most people can't tell. I've seen enough websites where the photos aren't any good and those bad photos keep getting rave comments. People will easily love photos they are in.

4. Photography is easier than we'd like to admit.
In terms of getting correct exposure and focus, it's a given nowadays. However, I know a guy who has premier equipment Canon full frame camera, L lenses and flash. But his photos are just plain bad. Some people just don't have the aptitude for this. But for those that do have the aptitude, taking good photos isn't difficult if you can afford the equipment. In the wedding photo business, I often feel that taking photos is the easiest part of the job, getting through the day and dealing with all sorts of people are not, however.

Some couples are happy just with well exposed and sharp images and ones which include all the 'important' people. Others expect the full-on 'artistic' treatment. Givens in either situation are appropriate lighting and at least 'reasonable' composition and framing. The key thing is understanding the client's requirements and expectations and then 'delighting' them.

Yeah, regarding (4), while there are often people capable of producing horrible photos from excellent cameras/lenses, they are a rare minority. The vast majority of non-pro shooters just keep improving because of the newer cameras/fast lenses that are now affordable.

RE: #4 - I'd say taking a good photograph is easier than we might admit sometimes. I don't think you can directly apply this to (in this case) professional wedding photography though, as "Green" mentions, taking the actual photograph is a small part of the overall job, probably 40% or less.

1. It's more about equipment than we'd like to admit.
True. If I didn't have my fast lenses, I won't know how to take dark church ceremony or reception pictures.

LOL, yes, if I didn't know that I needed to let more light in somehow when it get's darker, where would I be?

The link is a fun read and probably true to the casual reader, but I still bet not many photographers can work under pressure without a second chance yet consistently able to please their clients and still make a good living at it.

Competent wedding photographers with outstanding work are still among my most admired pros.

Nish, I would call that more of a rant than an article, especially with all the profanity in it. I don't think someone could learn all we do in a month and execute it well. Last time I checked every student in college majoring in photography isn't churning out award winning work, and they are studying and learning technique for much more than a month.

As for cameras getting better, especially entry level dSLRs, yes it is amazing. But most people still use the green auto setting. Even though the camera has great preset settings with pictures people often still dont use those settings, let alone p, s/tv, a/av or m. Until that green setting becomes smart enough with AI to tell when something is back lit or that the scene is mostly black and it should expose accordingly, or mostly all white and should expose accordingly, or if there is a group of people so it needs more depth of field, and that the pop up flashes can't be bounced, I have a feeling we will still be gainfully employed as wedding photographers. Yes it is harder with all the uncle bobs out there to say to every person getting married that they need a professional wedding photographer. But unless you are pricing yourself on the lower side of the market you weren't going to get that client anyways. You want a client who wants an album or who values what you are doing. Trust me they are out there and do exist! Do well enough and shoot distinctly enough that people can see the difference between your shot and uncle bob's.

Vail, having read your response I actually "clicked the link" (I didn't before) and saw the "article". Quite agree, just a random rant at best, not worth even reading.

It strikes me as a typical rant with a lot of exaggeration -- and if he stopped to think for a bit, he'd almost certainly realize that quite a bit of it was exaggeration too.

Taking his points in order:
1) I think his claim that it's mostly about equipment is partly true at best. It is true that for some circumstances you need a lens that's long or fast (or both). It's also true, however, that some people produce great results with Lomos, etc.

2) Typical rant material. I think most people have beliefs about right and wrong that are strongly held, but weakly supported. This applies to what manipulation they are willing to allow in photographs. Ire over manipulation is nothing new either -- I recall a big hoohah over a National Geographic cover that had been manipulated around 1983 or so -- and at the time, people pointing to earlier instances as justification for it.

3) Still more typical rant material. I've looked at enough old wedding photos to be pretty certain there's never been a time that they were dependably done well, even by pros. If anything I think he's primarily defensive because in a lot of cases, guests with cell phones do a better job than a lot of people who claim to be pros, but are actually mediocre hacks.

4) I'd say photography is a bit like chess. A few are obviously great from practically the first moment they pick up a camera. Most, however, need a lot of study and practice to be good at all. I also note that despite talking about how good he is, most of the rest of what he says seems to point more toward mediocrity than excellence -- more of a competent camera operator than a talented photographer. There have been cameras that were easy to operate since the Kodak Brownie.

5) He's exaggerating the rate a bit, but he's right that camera bodies depreciate quickly. This is mostly irrelevant though. First, lenses don't depreciate nearly that rapidly. Second, for most people the cost just doesn't matter. I can't imagine my wife going to a party carrying (to use his example) a Nikon D3 with a 400/2.8 -- even if it were completely free.

I'd consider a counterexample. Essentially everybody has a voice, and music teachers claim nearly anybody could be trained to sing professionally if they chose to. Professional singers seem to be well paid for their efforts (even quite a few who clearly, at least IMO, lack even the slightest hint of talent). Nonetheless, most people never take a single music class beyond what's required, and the percentage of people who ever sing professionally is minuscule.

If photographers are mere fancy camera operators, then our days are almost over.
Most people don't realize that going into a room full of strangers to take getting ready pictures requires skills. Buttering up a bride in stress so that she looks more beautiful also requires skills. And lining up 10-20 people quickly is not something anyone can do.
I think these soft skills are just as if not more important to a wedding photog than camera operating skills.