My point was that when it was expensive and you may not get paid for it, you took no chances. You shot what you knew from experience the Bride would pay for. They did not often sell a "package" up front, it was a low price base package and hopefully extras.
--
Bruce Dayton wrote:
One aspect that you are not considering here is that the earlier photographers had very poor coverage. Shooting just a few shots of an affair that can last for many hours (4-8) isn't doing justice to the affair. My clients normally get a proof book of all the photos along with whatever albums and enlargements they order. There is such a thing as wanting a better document of that important day. I look back on my wedding album and wish I had more pictures of the event. The photographer we had was more like your middle description.
On top of that, having a choice between "pretty good", a "little better" and "even better" is not a bad thing. Much like shooting a sunset - you think, "that looks good" and take the picture. Then the sun sinks a little lower and you think, "Wow, that's even better" and take the pic. Then the sun drops and you think, "That's the one!" and you take the pic. Sometimes the sun drops and the first shot is the only good one. So if you waited, you would have no good shots. So, was it bad editing that you just did? No, it was a change in the situation that you didn't have control of that you reacted to. A significant portion of a wedding is not under the photographer's control. That portion is more like shooting the sunset - you are not positive that you got the best shot. On top of that, you aren't sure just what the couple/family will actually want. I have been surprised sometimes about what shots are re-ordered.
When I was shooting medium format, I was much more reserved in my shooting because I had to be (cost of film/developing, speed of changing film, etc). But I can tell you that since shooting digital my clients are getting better and more variety than before. When you only shoot one, your choice is obvious.
Your statements are much like saying that anyone who buys/shoots Canon or Nikon doesn't know how to operate a camera because they are relying on automation. Sure, some are like that, but not necessarily the majority. The same goes for the wedding photographer. Now instead of only offering one shot of mother/daughter with mom blinking, you can offer a good shot (no blinking) along with more poses and candids. Shooting people is a numbers game to some degree. Expressions change from moment to moment (especially unposed shots) and situations continuously change. Not offering coverage is certainly an option as a photographer, but it doesn't make those who do, poor at in camera editing or lazy.
Sorry, you touched a nerve.
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
