So far we’ve sized up the opposition and, by fair means or foul, got ourselves a portfolio of snaps with which to woo prospective punters. What next?
According to the book, we now need to “Prepare A Wedding Package” but of course in 1988 we’re talking fillum. A proper job, often done by a chap called Norman wearing a navy blue blazer with pens in the breast pocket, usually with his “trusty” Hasselblad camera on a tripod (usually referred to nowadays as a ‘blad on sticks).
All the pictures for Norman’s basic package would be shot on two 12-exposure films. Twelve standard set-up shots starting with “Bride Getting Out Of Car” and finishing with “Happy Couple Pretending To Cut Cake” would account for one film, and the other would be committed to one shot of the couple plus five formal groups, each shot twice in the hope of all eyes being open in one of them. Et voilà – all your wedding day memories enshrined in 18 pictures, lovingly presented in due course in a small album bound in cream leather-look vinyl with church bells and “Our Wedding” tastefully embossed on the front in faux gold leaf.
Having said that, I’m actually struggling to relate any of the book’s handy hints on package preparation to digital photography and the 21st Century, so we’ll just press on and get stuck straight in to “Planning The Shoot”.
Under that photo of the camp groom, it says “Ask him to stand slightly sideways-on in front of the camera for a more natural-looking pose”. Oh we do like a natural-looking pose.
“A picture should be taken of the father helping the bride out of the car” – but there’s no advice about what to do if the idea doesn’t occur to Dad, or if the chauffeur decides to big up his part and takes over the show, screwing up your only chance of a clear shot of the bride.
“Take a shot of the bride and her father from inside the church, framed in the doorway” – but again, nothing about the late guests pushing past them or the bridesmaid blocking your shot by needlessly faffing with the bride’s veil.
There’s a rather touching implication that there “shouldn’t be a problem” about you being able to take pictures during the ceremony, and I agree – there shouldn’t be. But unfortunately, nowadays there usually is.
The presumption is that any picture of the signing of the register will be a fake set up after the real deed is done, with bride and groom artfully arranged before being blasted with enough direct flash to render them blind for the next minute or so.
On the recession, you’re advised to “stand halfway down the aisle and photograph the couple as they walk towards you.” This would have worked in 1988 when more often than not wedding guests knew how to behave, but nowadays is guaranteed to result in you being elbowed out the way by a bunch of people intent upon grabbing a badly exposed out-of-focus picture of part of the bride on their iPhones.
Outside the church it’s time to take two pictures of the couple (one looking at each other, one at the camera) and a full-length of the bride after her mother and the chief bridesmaid have agreed upon exactly how the train should be arranged for best effect. Your next task is to “Arrange the bridesmaids around the bride and take two shots, one with them all looking at the bride and one with them all looking at the camera.” I wonder if anybody ever reversed the order when in a silly mood and did the at camera ones first.
After that it’s the family groups done much as they still are, then a set-up confetti-throwing shot, then two shots of the couple in the “limousine”. Yes, you guessed it – one looking at each other, then one at the camera.
Funnily enough there’s no mention of that 1980’s favourite “Couple About to Kiss as Flower Girl Peeps Round Tree With Hand Up To Mouth and Eyes Wide Open in Surprise”, but perhaps that’s one for the reception. We’ll get to that next time …
“Have you worked at the venue before?” is one of those questions which bridal comics tell brides to ask of any wedding photographer they’re considering booking. On the face of it, it’s a sensible enough question, but in fact it’s only really valid if you’re thinking of booking the same type of photographer your mum had. How so? Well …
This was the cover of the launch edition of the original London Weddings magazine, and that’s the picture which a lot of people were sure was of a model, shot in a studio.
by Dan
show hide 1 comment