I recently shot a wedding with just one lens, a Rokinon 35mm t/1.5 on a Sony A7sII body. This was completely unplanned and wasn’t done to prove any point. I also carried multiple lenses and bodies in my bag that cover all the focal lengths I normally use: 24-70mm f/2.8, 55mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 f/2.8. Between these lenses, I’m covered for all the distances and lighting conditions I encounter while shooting weddings. I just didn’t have to use any of them on this occasion.
The royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle sure caused a lot of attention all over the world. Many photos have been taken and published, but one of them went viral on social media, showing the newlyweds holding hands from above. The photographer behind the image is Yui Mok, a staff photographer at Press Association (PA). He answered the questions on Twitter and revealed how he took this photo which received so much attention.
Just as Taylor Jackson is explaining how the 24-70mm lens sucks for weddings, up comes Manny Ortiz. He believes the opposite. He says the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is vital for weddings and that every photographer should own one. They’re two polar opposite views. In this video, Manny explains why he thinks a 24-70mm should be in everybody’s bag.
Your wedding day is one of the happiest days of your life. You’re surrounded by family and friends to watch you get married to the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. You also want photos of the day to look back on in years to come, so you hire a photographer. But then what if that photographer doesn’t show up?
That’s what happened to newlyweds Shari and Brayden Dunaway of Utah. At the Utah State Capitol in July 2017, the day was perfect. But their photographer, Davide Bowe Jacobs, owner of Bellissima Images Photography didn’t show up. Local TV station, KSL, went to investigate…
Professional Wedding Photography is dead.
Change is afoot.
I see it all around me. Photographers who once charged £2k for a wedding, now putting themselves forwards for jobs less than a grand. Award winning photographers getting part time jobs to supplement their income because they can no longer afford to shoot weddings full time.
And it’s all a dirty little secret.
I saw this photo in one of the wedding photography forums I visit and got curious. I contacted Dor Sasson of Happy Days, the photographer and asked him how the shot was taken. It could not have bees simpler. The photo was taken with a “Real Camera”, but the scene and lighting were provide with everyday objects.
Like most couples, Matthew and Jazmine Gallegos from Albuquerque hired a wedding photographer to preserve the memories of their big day. However, the couple claims that they were left without their photos, as the photographer disappeared from the internet and blocked them on social media. They are now speaking up to warn others of their bad experience.
Some couples want a nice low key wedding. Others, however, want it to be somewhat extravagant. But sometimes that extravagance comes at a cost. In the case of one couple, pyrotechnics during the happy couple’s first dance caused the venue to go up in flames. It starts off as many first dances do. The happy couple is happily dancing away with friends looking on, cheering.
But then the cheers turn to screams as they notice the decorations above have caught fire. And it all goes downhill from there, really. The whole thing was shared to Facebook, where it’s already received a few comments criticising the venue for not having fire extinguishers handy.
If you’re looking for a little something to boost your ideas for wedding and engagement shoots, photographers Phil Chester and Sara Byrne (AKA PS Photo Stuff) have just the thing. In less than two minutes, they demonstrate some of the most popular poses for photographing couples. You can use them to jumpstart your creative process and of course, end up with some neat shots.