On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:59:46 -0000, lid
wrote:

ZONED! wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 22:12:31 +0200, Ken Tough
wrote:

wrote:

I'm finding the replies to this thread interesting, and perhaps rather
surprising. When my wife and I decided to get married, we decided very
quickly that there was no way we were going to have a professional
photographer present. Photographers dominate the post-wedding
activities, even to the extent of trying to choreograph such activities
as throwing confetti and greeting the bride and groom. In my
experience this is an intolerable intrusion.

We made sure our photog knew we didn't want this, didn't want more
than a very few posed shots, and ruled out any shots during the
ceremony itself. (Though we knew this guy and his work and style
and knew he'd never do those things...)l It worked out great.

Any good pro photog would not intrude in such a way, rather blend
in...

I wonder if the convention is different in different countries. Over
here, wedding photographers tend to do posed group shots. "reportage"
style is becoming popular, but AFAIK it's stil a minority taste.

Andrew.
Ok, everybody shoots a wedding slightly differently (some less slight
than others) It is commonplace in most that I have shot to shoot posed
"call backs" directly after the ceremony around the altar or place
where the ceremony took place. It is not uncommon to avoid flash
photography (this does not include amateurs, friends and Aunt Martha)
during the ceremony. Most of the rest are candids within a reception,
save for any portraits pre-ceremony of the couple. The call backs are
shot in a fast, professional and non-invasive manner with as little
audience as possible. The candids are also shot as non invasively as
possible. Being invisible is always desired even on the occasion where
you may have to help others who forget their timing or cues. Most pro
wedding photogs have been to a lot more weddings that the average
guest even some other hired help...