Bob, Exactly the kind of advice I was looking for! I'm forwarding it to the Bride and Groom now. Regards, Bob S.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I was recently married and, with my wife, had to choose a wedding photographer. Strangely, in my area, they are all divided into pretty much "PJ" or "traditional." Pretty silly. We went with someone who used neither term and was somewhere in-between in a certain sense. Some of the "PJ" types were trying so hard to be clever in their photos – the exact opposite of the photographer becoming anonymous. Action shots with slanted horizons of blurred brides getting out of cars – as if they happened to be captured by paparazzi for the cover of The Star. It is just a fad and will look dated in about five years. Some of the "traditional" category had such posed shots that we were bored to tears. We went only with personal recommendations and saw about 10 of the better wedding photographers in our area. They ranged from about $1700 to $5000. Most were $2000 to $3000. They would be more in or around a major city like NYC, but we are 2 hours north. About half (maybe less) gave the proofs to the customer. Packages usually included variations on something like: 24 page leather albums, 200-400 shots taken, 6-8 hours of shooting time on the date (often including up to three locations), a couple of enlargements, in some cases engagement photo sessions, or other things. We paid a little over 2 grand, got all our (~350) proofs, got a decent-sized album, two framed enlargements, and a great photographer. Personality entered into our decision as much as - or more than, really - technical ability. I am not speaking of artistic personality but actual people skills. Not to focus on equipment but this is an equipment list, so... Everyone we went to used Hasselblad except two – one who used Bronica (loud!) and one who used 35mm Canon. After seeing the results of my photographer (who used Hassey), I wouldn’t consider 35mm. Initially I would have, apart from being somewhat suspicious that some 35mm users had 35 because they weren't established enough to have MF. The MF difference was clear even for smaller prints. No comparison in terms of tonality. This is also why I’ve given serious consideration to MF in my own shooting, though I don’t feel I am currently good enough to deserve such equipment (apart from my beloved Yashicaflex that my father gave me). I would go to a lot of photographers and look at a lot of books - not "best of" display books but complete albums of individual couples. RSW >>
