A Cullinan wedding.

Recently I went along with hair and make up artist, Claire Calvert, to grab a few shots of the bridal preparations at wedding at which she was booked to make the bridal party look beautiful.
The event took place in Cullinan the site where the Cullinan Diamond was found. At the time it was the world's largest diamond. The stone is now part of the British Royal Family's Crown Jewels.
I was not the primary photographer, in fact I never even got to see the bridegroom and when the bride got into the car and headed for the church we packed up and went home.
Still, it was fun. Here are a few of the images I got that day, naturally all shot on film -- and yes, that is a DELIBERATE double exposure!

How to choose a wedding photographer.

The business of wedding photography has changed dramatically over the past few years. The advent of high-quality digital cameras has seen many "Uncle Bobs" and "Aunt Sheilas," with absolutely no photographic experience or expertise, buy a camera, print up a business card and proclaim he or she is now a professional photographer.
And while it is true sticking the camera on idiot "auto" mode can sometimes produce passable images, think carefully about entrusting your precious, once-in-a-lifetime memories to such a person.
When choosing your wedding photographer the most important question to ask is: Will the photographer be able to capture the wedding day the way the bride and groom want? Will he or she create unique and emotional memories that you will cherish the rest of your life?
Once you've decided to get married and have chosen your wedding date, waste no time in searching for your photographer. You'll be blind sided to discover the better ones are booked heavily into the future, often over a year out so time is of the essence.

Film or digital?

Few photographers shoot film nowadays and today's professional digital cameras are capable of producing astoundingly good images and enlargements. But if you want something particularly special, ask the photographer to do some shots on medium format film. I shoot many portraits with some of the world's finest medium format film-cameras and the results more than justify the added effort!

Equipment

There is no doubt, the skills and ability of the person behind the camera are far more important than the equipment itself. That said however, you want to be sure your photographer has high-quality kit as well as back-up equipment should the primary camera, lens or flash fail -- and they sometimes do! Pros will ALWAYS have back-up units. Ask the photographer what sort of lighting equipment he or she will use and if an assistant will be present.

A new trend in wedding photography.

The hottest trend in wedding photography today is the Photojournalistic Wedding. Photojournalism shots are more animated, and might show the bride and her bridesmaids running into the church in the rain, or the groomsmen playing around outside, or guests having a wild time at the reception. Photos are produced in both colour and black and white but b&w is becoming increasingly popular. In a photojournalistic wedding the aim is to tell your story.
If this is how you want your wedding photographed then it is obvious you should hire someone who has experience in photojournalism or press photography. He or she may or may not have photographed weddings before but will understand how to tell a story, capture decisive moments and work under pressure and, in addition, will have taken thousands of pictures with their equipment in all manner of challenging and difficult conditions. That is the sort of person you want to photograph your wedding!

Some questions to ask the photographer:

• Have you shot a wedding at my location before?
• Do you have an assistant?
• Do you have backup equipment and is it the same quality as the primary equipment?
• What time will you begin and how long will you stay until?
• When will the proofs be ready?
• Do we get to keep the proofs?
• Do you mark your proofs?
• Where and how are your proofs marked?
• How much extra for unmarked proofs?
• What lighting equipment will you use?
• Do you have tele-photo and wide-angle lenses?
• Do you work well with the other vendors? i.e.: coordinators, caterers, videographers.
• Can you work from a photo checklist that we create?
• How will you be dressed?

Final points:

Make sure the photographer you interview will be the photographer who actually photographs your wedding. Read and understand the contract carefully. Spend the most you can afford on your wedding photographs -- the expensive food at the wedding will quickly be forgotten but the photographs will live for generations.

For more information on wedding and portrait photography visit my site: www.bighilt.com

Rain and this Johannesburg wedding photographer

I am beginning to think I have super-powers and should be called "the Rain-maker" -- but don't tell prospective brides who want to hire me!
The last couple of weddings I've done have all had one thing in common -- rain and rapidly-changing, poor light.
Danielle and Wimpie's wedding was not different. When we arrived at the venue, the Thatchery in Muldersdrift, it was overcast and threatening to rain but every few minutes a gap in the clouds would appear and bright sunlight streamed through.
Then moments later that gap would close again and the light would again quickly become gloomy and dull. The result was constant checking of exposures -- that is one disadvantage of shooting film, on digital you have instant feedback. But then, on the other hand, film can handle the changing light and extreme contrast far better. Swings and roundabouts!
To cap it all, in the midde of the ceremony, the heavens opened forcing everyone to scurry for cover. Did I mention it was an outdoor wedding? This meant some photos had to shot with the couple standing under a large umbrella held by someone hiding behind the groom. In truth, he did a pretty good job keeping out of view.
In some cultures it is supposed to be a good omen if it rains on your wedding day. If that is the case, Danielle and Wimpie can look forward to a long and happy life.
But all in all it worked out well. The photos look good and tell the couple's story.
They can be viewed here.

Are pro photographers doomed?

One of my favourite blogs is the Strobist. Published by David Hobby, a veteran newspaper photographer, it is a most comprehensive and definitive source of information about lighting techniques and how to use off-camera flashes. David is undeniably one of the most knowlegeable guys around and I have learned much from his blog. Check it out, it is listed in the blogroll in the right-hand column.

Recently David wrote about the need for photographers to sometimes do work for free. The article evoked a great deal of discussion. While many agreed with his point of view, some took a completely different position, particularly John Harrington. Those who had opposing views felt that doing work for free adversely affects the way a professional photographer's value is perceived. You can read the debate on the Strobist site, so I won't rehash the arguments here.
But it got me to thinking that much, as I hate to say it, I believe the days of the professional photographer are largely numbered. I say this for a couple of reasons. Technology has brought convenience and simplicity making it easy for camera-owners to shoot properly-focussed, well-exposed, pictures -- the fact that little thought or creativity is involved, means nothing. Consumers of images have, since the advent of web publishing, been dumbed down and most wouldn't know quality if it walked up and slapped them in the face.

Anyone with a camera

Nowadays, anyone with a digital camera, figures he or she is, or can be, a professional photographer. By way of example, I live in a small town in South Africa that has fallen on hard times as a result of local gold mines shutting down. There are 57 "wedding photographers" here, pretty well all of whom are equipped with a digital camera, painfully slow kit zoom lens (most don't know what that means) and built-in, pop up flash. Their standard operating procedure is to speculatively shoot around 1400 images, download them, burn a CD and present it to the client at the end of the wedding. They justify this mediocrity as "photojournalistic wedding photography," although the nearest any of these "photographers" has ever come to photojournalism is buying a newspaper from a street-corner vendor.
They are happy to work at a rate that, in many cases, just covers traveling expenses. But the client is happy because he's never seen better or "just good enough" is indeed good enough.
Recently, a young-buck newspaper sports photographer asked how I could shoot a motorcycle race with a manual Nikkormat that doesn't autofocus, has no motor-drive and does not allow me to immediately see the shot taken. He spoke from behind some or other 10 frames per second DSLR. As soon as I started to explain zone focussing and the decisive moment, his eyes glazed over. He had no clue what I was talking about an mumbled that those things didn't bother him, he simply put the camera on "auto" and of the hundreds of images he shot he was sure some would be good enough for publication.
I do not think it is the guy shooting for free that is going to put the pro out of business. I think the wave of technology - in much the same way easily-used office software signalled the doom of typists - and the general acceptance of mediocrity, where purchasers of photography can't recognise the quality offered by the true professional, will do that.
It's sad but I think we are a bunch of dinosaurs in a rapidly-developing ice-age.