Wedding Re-Takes?

A week ago, I photographed a wedding for one of my two closest friends.

When she originally asked me to photograph her wedding, I told her that I thought she should get a second photographer, also. And so, there were two of us, working complimentarily to each other.

Before the wedding began, the other photographer mentioned to me that if we missed/blew any significant shots (like the kiss), we would just do re-takes, later. At first, I didn't understand what he meant. He explained it to me, that he'd have the bride and groom and wedding party re-enact the significant event, and he'd re-shoot it.

I was quite surprised and taken aback by the idea. To my perception, the kiss (or whatever else I might happen to miss) is a historic moment, and I want to record the historic moment. A re-take is nothing but a re-enactment, devoid of any meaning. I had a hard time understanding why anybody would want a commemorative recording of a non-event. Further, whenever they looked at the pictures, instead of remembering the big moment, they'd remember pretending it, and looking at the picture would bring to mind the charade. Re-takes made no sense to me.

Are re-takes common in wedding photography? If so, how do couples tend to think and feel about re-takes?

Mike

www.mikespinak.com

First Mike,

Glad you are back to us safely!

A lot of wedding photography is actually a symbiotic relationship between the event which is sort of staged not only for the event itself, but also to be photographed. The end products are thrilled family, happy guests and a happy married couple with a book of magic.

All sorts of things happen: a dark sanctuary, rain that is not planned for, dress that won't hang right and kisses that go wrong because the brides hair piece got dislodged!

The book cannot end up without certain key shots.

So, one has a lot of beautiful shots planned which one knows how to do very well every time. This starts as soon as the ceremony is over, based on a little schedule manipulation, so a bunch of pictures of the two get done.

Formal together with the back drop of the location (trees, the ocean, the church, flowers or the best one can) and then all sorts of shots like the groom attending to the brides bow, them kissing in different ways, the groom carrying the bride, walking hand in hand and so forth.

I would hate to know that a kiss would need to be redone.

Certainly in a Jewish wedding, one cannot ask the groom to rebreak the glass. Well I've never heard of it. The photographer had better not miss. That is why a professional is hired.

Asher

Hi Mike.

I've never heard of this before either, and I personally would not like to participate in that approach, or indeed be the bride who had to re-enact. It would seem so fake, and as you rightly mention, that would be the memory, not the memory of the actual event.

The photography surely is about documenting the day!

I also agree with Asher's comment here:

Asher Kelman said:

The photographer had better not miss. That is why a professional is hired.
Asher

Click to expand...

I am also pleased to see you back Mike.

Every culture has a different requirement, within that culture there are individual variations.

Afaik, in the UK, the actual signing of the register is not allowed to be photographed. It is always faked. But then, the whole uk church wedding thing is just an act, in most cases. ( a bit like wearing a white dress (for the bride, and occasionally the groom...)). So, at the end of the day, all thats needed is some nice photos, it is not much more than that to many folk.

Firstly: Thanks to all of you for the concern, and thanks for welcoming me back. This looks like it is going to be both a fast and a slow recuperation, fast in the sense that I am doing much better each day, slow in the sense that it was pretty severe, and even a lot of improvement each day will take a while for a total recovery, I expect. Anyway, after the ways things were a few days ago, I'm chuffed just to be doing as well as I am.

Also, thank you for your responses. I suppose it should not be surprising that the answers seem to range across both extremes. Personally, my inclinations regarding wedding re-takes, either as the photographer or as a participant, are more in line with Ger Dukes statement, "The photography surely is about documenting the day!" than with Ray's statement, "...at the end of the day, all thats needed is some nice photos..."

Of course it is nice when the two can naturally go together. Thus, as Asher said and Ger reiterated about, "The photographer had better not miss. That is why a professional is hired." I am not sure I would have chosen the word "professional", because there are both incompetent professionals and competent amateurs. Anyway, I could agree with a rephrased version, perhaps replacing the word "professional" with"skilled photographer".

Anyway, I would not have accepted the position as photographer of my friend's wedding unless I was certain I could perform the job as well as it could be done.

I do agree with Asher that the wedding is often a symbiotic relationship, staged for photographic opportunities; however, to me, making pageantry out of a true significant event, in cooperation with photography, is not the same as re-enacting for photography's sake.

If one was shooting weddings for a living, then perhaps feelings about re-takes are something to explore with a client in advance. I think that Ger and I show that there is, at least, a significant minority who find the notion of re-takes problematic.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com

Mike Spinak said:

Of course it is nice when the two can naturally go together. Thus, as Asher said and Ger reiterated about, "The photographer had better not miss. That is why a professional is hired." I am not sure I would have chosen the word "professional", because there are both incompetent professionals and competent amateurs. Anyway, I could agree with a rephrased version, perhaps replacing the word "professional" with"skilled photographer".

Click to expand...

My view is the "professionial" gets teh shot. The business person takes the money and makes the client happy regardless of image quality (sales skills).

Mike Spinak said:

Anyway, I would not have accepted the position as photographer of my friend's wedding unless I was certain I could perform the job as well as it could be done.

Click to expand...

I agree. I could not imagine attempting a wedding without additional gear. Spare body, 20-30GB of CF cards, spare flash, and etcetera. There is no room for missing the moment.

Mike Spinak said:

I do agree with Asher that the wedding is often a symbiotic relationship, staged for photographic opportunities; however, to me, making pageantry out of a true significant event, in cooperation with photography, is not the same as re-enacting for photography's sake.

Click to expand...

I consider a wedding to be a staged public affirmation of a relationship within a community. It is essentially a coming out party just like a debutante event.

Mike Spinak said:

If one was shooting weddings for a living, then perhaps feelings about re-takes are something to explore with a client in advance. I think that Ger and I show that there is, at least, a significant minority who find the notion of re-takes problematic.

Click to expand...

I dislike the idea too. But if the actual ceremony was 2 days earlier with a justice of the peace at a courthouse, then the staged public ceremony might be acceptable to reshoot if needed if negotiated in advance. But I think if you are not geared to get the shot and do not have the skill to do so, then you should not be shooting weddings.

I am glad to hear you are on the mend.

enjoy,

Sean

Hi, Sean,

My view is the "professionial" gets teh shot. The business person takes the money and makes the client happy regardless of image quality (sales skills).

Click to expand...

People use the word professional to mean different things, sometimes the same individual uses the word to mean different things in different contexts. I will keep your clarification about how you use the word in mind in discussions with you.

I could not imagine attempting a wedding without additional gear. Spare body, 20-30GB of CF cards, spare flash, and etcetera. There is no room for missing the moment.

Click to expand...

I agree that there is no room for missing the moment. I borrowed the spare camera body and spare flash (which went unused).

I brought 10GB of CF cards with me, and used about 6. With my shooting style, 20-30 would be far more than I'd use for most weddings and receptions.

I consider a wedding to be a staged public affirmation of a relationship within a community. It is essentially a coming out party just like a debutante event.

Click to expand...

Weddings have several distinct aspects, such as the state aspect, the religion aspect, and the social aspect. Foremost for me, a wedding is a gathering together of community of personally meaningful people, and entering into a specific type of covenant with the witness and participation of that community.

I am glad to hear you are on the mend.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm convalescing well.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com

This discussion is interesting to me, as I find myself bouncing from one side to the other ... as a former news photog, one of the aspects that I relished in photo journalism was the daily challenge of getting the one-shot/one-time photo in a constantly changing environment.

I never really gave it much thought, but I figured that other/commercial photogs typically had multiple chances to capture the defining moment.

I think the bottom line is with the Bride and Groom. Would they rather have an awkward photo of the "real kiss" or a photo with high image quality and high image impact of a staged kiss?

Ideally, one would want a high image quality with high image impact of the real kiss ... and since the timing of the kiss is no secert and since the photog can/should/could prep the kissie and kisser (within reason) as to placement, angle, duration of event ... shouldn't be a problem for a skilled photog to capture the real deal. Having the safety net of a re-stage sounds a bit chicken to me ... but then again not a bad idea either.

Gary

Gary Ayala said:

........I think the bottom line is with the Bride and Groom. Would they rather have an awkward photo of the "real kiss" or a photo with high image quality and high image impact of a staged kiss?

Ideally, one would want a high image quality with high image impact of the real kiss ... and since the timing of the kiss is no secert and since the photog can/should/could prep the kissie and kisser (within reason) as to placement, angle, duration of event ... shouldn't be a problem for a skilled photog to capture the real deal. Having the safety net of a re-stage sounds a bit chicken to me ... but then again not a bad idea either.

Gary

Click to expand...

Any wedding I've been involved with, there was a dress rehearsal with clear definiton of the timing and placement of the key shots. They practiced so that in the excitement of the day, they were simply following a learned script, redoing with emotion what they rehearsed like actors.

Again, it takes a professional wedding photographer to guarantee the magic is captured.

Asher

When I began photographing weddings in the late 1980's, everything was very formal and posed except the reception. Soft focus, double exposures and Monte Zuker style posing was the thing to do. At that time, and into the 1990's, re-takes were very common, especially in churches and temples where ceremony photography was severly limited. I usually would do a re-take of the unity candle lighting, the rings, and the kiss.

At my most recent wedding, there were strict ceremony photography restrictions, but I was told that re-takes would be possible. However, since everything was moving so slow, the post-ceremony photography was limited in time, so we passed on the re-takes.

Currently, documentary and PJ style wedding photography is dominant and I think that re-takes are rarely photographed.

I try to place myself, with a tripod and telephoto and high ISO digital, to photograph the ceremony events as they happen without flash, even if the quality is not the best. In many cases, that's the best I will get. However, I have also photographed weddings where no ceremony photography was allowed, and, in that case, some re-takes are essential.

Tom,

I believe the way to get around the rules is to give out a few digicams to various people in the family with the ISO set high and let them free. Believe me they'll take good pictures even where they shouldnt, and no one can stop them.

Anyway, this happens. Only this way you get a bunch of extra shooters for free!

Asher

I agree, you miss the kiss, you missed the kiss. Forget about restaging it. although I went to one wedding once where the shutter lag on the camera might have been too long to capture the kiss????????? Crazy

Daniel Harrison said:

I agree, you miss the kiss, you missed the kiss. Forget about restaging it. although I went to one wedding once where the shutter lag on the camera might have been too long to capture the kiss????????? Crazy

Click to expand...

That's not a kiss ... that was a peck.

We have not attended a wedding rehearsal.... ever, at least that I remember. Nor have we ever re-staged any aspects of over a thousand weddings. <shrug?>

Although, we DO spend a good amount of time discussing the desires of our couple WITH our couple months and days prior to their blessed event. A time line is set in stone prior to the event. A few words with the officient prior to the ceremony can be critical, as well is a brief chat with the coordinator (assuming there is one).

So by the time the bride walks down the aisle, we have a good feel for what to expect. Viewing a unlit trio of candles on the altar table, we don't need to be told that the unity candle will be lit following the vows. But we will ask!

Some images are so traditional and expected to be captured.... the kiss. The breaking of the glass, 'the' kiss should not be missed and certainly not 're-enacted'! Keeping the trigger finger on the release (always) comes from doing a it few times.

No, we don't restage past moments. We capture the reality of whats happening. (sounds like an ad, eh?)

Scott

Scott B. Hughes said:

No, we don't restage past moments. We capture the reality of whats happening. (sounds like an ad, eh?)Scott

Click to expand...

Scott,

I have the same thing about the pilot who flies my plane and lands safely!

It's one of those professional moments.

I like that!

Asher

I think doing a retake will lose its meaning - but thats just me. I doubt that the people will have the same facial expression, same exact feelings.

Shooting my first wedding on Saturday

There is no rehearsal. It's small in a patio area of a restaurant. I went last week at the time of the ceremony to check the lighting. They hadn't decided on using umbrellas for the tables - I urged them to do that so that we have diffused light or otherwise things will be blown out.

They were having me stationed where I will shoot into the sun. Yikes - I asked to move - thankfully they are in an archway and are covered so they will be diffused. She asked me not to use any flash - so I will have to adjust the iso and use my tripod too. No fill light.

And the one thing I instructed them to do - Hold that kiss and count to 20! They reception and ceremony are all one spot. No retakes possible!

This is a case for the 1DII since it aquires focus fast and can get 8-16 frames during the kiss!

There is no need for more than 8MP for these key shots.

Asher

Asher,

I am drooling over the 1d3 but it will have to wait. Furnishing a studio is not for the faint of checkbook.

thank you Asher. yes, a wedding pro is required to get the shots & you are correct, a retake is not part of the equation.

Paul, did you remove a large portion your message?

The e-mail I received alerting me to a new message in this thread shows more. All of which I agreed!

gee Scott........I did not know that actually occurs. Many of my replies are a little (a lot) confrontational.
Sometimes (in moments of weakness) I feel I just need to be more diplomatic. Believe it or not, I try very hard but at the end of the day I am going to make statements that may offend the more politically correct amongst us. At the end of it all though, I figure I am a pro & have been shooting for around 20 years..........i am going to call it how I see it. The more educated types here, & there are many more so then me, would no doubt communicate the same message with a bit of spin & dress it up to sound like a compliment.
Yea......I removed nearly the entire message......glad you got it.

Cheers,

Paul