Pretty accurate disciption of things, Bill.
The only thing I would like to add is that the engagement photo, and the formals were usually separate packages done in the studio. The engagement photo in fact was often a freeby done in the hopes that the Bride would buy the formals and wedding package from that studio later. These were shot with the big portrait cameras as you mentioned
A wedding package was usually the 10-12 B&W 8x10's I mentioned of the wedding ceremony. Very seldom was there much coverage of the reception, at least at the economic level I was aware of back then, as soon as the cake cutting was done so was the photographer. These "candids" were usually done with a Speed Graphic and roll film back, or a Rollei. You had to have quite a reputation to get away with the Rollei, as most folks equated "professional" with "big black camera" as I have mentioned several time before here on the list. Mostly only advertising photographers had Blads back then. For those who think a Hasselblad is a modern camera, the 500C came out in 1957.
--
William Robb wrote:
What has happened over the past few decades is that the cost per exposure has decreased dramatically. This benefits the consumer, in that they can now get more bang for the buck. In Tom's example of the 1950s photographer, the film was most likely 8x10 sheets, with the prints being made via contact. I know my parents wedding pictures from the late 1940's were done on 8x10 and 5x7 sheets. Before roll film became widely used, the option of the full coverage wedding just didn't exist.
Medium format supplanted sheet film when interchangable lens medium format cameras started to show up in the late 1950's with the Hasselblad. Up until that time, roll film cameras were primarily folders of indeterminate quality, and were eschewed by the professional.
When roll film and portable electronic flash became a quality option, the amount of coverage possible increased, and photographers started to provide coverage at the ceremony, and would take more studio pictures than a half dozen or so.
35mm dropped the cost per exposure even further, and at about the same time, mass production in the printing end became viable, along with colour prints.
As the cost per exposure dropped, photographers who adopted the new formats were able to give more for less in terms of volume, and those who didn't adapt either retired or went bust.
Of course, every time an "improvement" has come along, picture quality has suffered, but that is not really germaine to this part of the discussion,
Digital is just another brick in the road. Now, it costs the same, whether the photographer shoots 100 pictures or a thousand.
Does this mean the consumer gets a better product? In some ways perhaps, in other ways perhaps not.
I was at a wedding a while back where the photographer was using a digital. He shot a heck of a lot of pictures. So many, that he became part of the wedding. So many that the continuous flash bursts and noise was a nuisance.
If this is what the consumer is getting when we say we are providing better coverage, then we are doing the customer a real disservice.
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
