Wedding Photographers BEWARE - Brides Magazine Hates You

I went looking for a wedding image both tacky and ugly because I needed a header picture.  Win!

Brides Magazine has done it again, slamming photographers in an article.

Last February, it was a feast of dribble explaining to subscribers that they should not feed the photographer at the wedding.  That this is an asinine statement considering the level of work a capable and competent professional wedding photographer has to do should be obvious.  If it's not, you might want to make sure you really are a wedding photographer.

This past week, they published an article quoting two different professional wedding photographers on what subscribers should look at when hiring a wedding photographer.  To use the word "professional" in describing either is rather generous, similar to calling any of the TV evangelists profound skeptical thinkers.

Brides magazine has since pulled and reposted the article to remove the offensive material, and one of the professionals has also said that there was miscommunication and her intent was not followed.  Might even be true.  Except for the quotes.

Here's a good one.

The article aims to provide advice on choosing a professional wedding photographer, however, it previously contained the following paragraph regarding questions the client should ask a prospective photographer:

What kind of equipment do you use?

“They should say either Cannon [sic] or Nikon, which are the most readily available professional cameras available,” says Tiffani. “However, there are professional and amateur cameras in both brands. A professional camera should be a ‘full format’ camera. This will ensure that you can print large-scale prints easily."

I think that she means Canon.  I also think that she means either full frame or medium format.  Looking at the company website, many folks will be thrilled to see that a Canon Rebel is a professional camera.  In the mind of that photographer anyway.  Nothing wrong with Rebels, they are excellent tools, but no one puts them in the realm of Canon's pro lineup.  

Here's another funny one.

“Your photographer should be able to describe their equipment and lenses,”  

Wait, it gets even better.

“Your photographer should know their ‘Low Light’ process very well and should be able to describe how they accomplish their signature night look.”

If you've ever thought about wedding photography as a side business, apparently the bar has fallen drastically since I quit doing them about 30 years ago.  I feel really awful for the hard-working professionals who actually know what they are doing because dingbats like this are really lowering the standards of acceptability.

I've examined the public portfolios of both quoted pros.  I am very happy to announce that Kevin, my orange tabby, will be shooting weddings in January because plainly actual skill is not required so long as you can apply a post processing effect and a texture <please excuse sound of projectile vomiting>.  

I'm not going to name the photographers who were quoted or provide links to their websites.  That's not important.  

Being a wedding photographer is a very tough gig if one is committed to doing the job well.  It takes a lot of skill, a lot of emotional maturity and a skin tougher than Iron Man's armour.  I think doing weddings is tougher now than it was when I did them.  There is a lot more competition, from a lot larger collection of people who could not find their ass with both hands.  Back when I spent more time in Henry's, every year at the end of January, someone who got a camera that past Christmas would wander in with a business card proclaiming themselves wedding photographer and asking deep questions about what P meant on the dial.

Brides Magazine has a current circulation of over 300,000 subscribers.  Presumably, that means 300,000 soon to be brides are getting advice from this stack of birdcage lining.  If you do shoot weddings, be ready with facts to counter brute stupidity.