Vogue Magazine Says You Shouldn’t Hire Professional Wedding Photographers
Jan 11, 2016
Share:
Announcing it is 2016 and that it’s time weddings change, Vogue released a list of 10 wedding “rules” to break.
Among the things that Vogue claims will “detract” from the “raw, essential celebration of true love” are rings, the first dance and professional wedding photographers.
Instead, the magazine recommends couples rely on their guests’ Facebook and Instagram photos, or give them disposable cameras.
After explaining to brides-to-be why they should say “I don’t” to wedding rings, maids of honor and gift registries, Vogue went on to say this about professional wedding photographers – and why you shouldn’t hire them for you special day:
“It made sense back in the olden days, pre–Facebook albums and Instagram hashtags, when the whole world didn’t have phones with cameras on them. Having the actual leather-bound album on your coffee table seemed like the only evidence that the whole thing actually took place. If social media is not your thing, why not scatter some disposable cameras around the party and let your drunken guests go to town? You’ll end up with hilarious and candid pictures without the pressure of “likes.””
Nobody can accuse me of being a fan of the over-the-top overly-expensive wedding industry, but what kind of nonsense is that?
If the only reason couples hired wedding photographers was to have photos posted online, people wouldn’t bother getting albums or prints made. They would also be asking photographers to skip the lengthy editing process and just use Instagram filters to make sure the photos go live ASAP. Why even send the photos to the clients if photographers can just post them online and tag the couple?
And giving your guests disposable cameras? Even if they aren’t drunk, expect at least 50% of them to be rubbish – and that’s assuming there are semi-decent lighting conditions at the venue.
And why can’t the couple have awesome looking photos as a souvenir for themselves, their families and their children if they’re not going online?
I’ve been a guest at weddings where there were disposable cameras and I admit it was loads of fun, but that was either in addition to the professional photographers or a poor man’s replacement – never favored over pro photos.
Sounds like the only person here under pressure of “likes” was the author, as this makes absolutely no sense.
Sure, the standard wedding is not right for everybody and not every single couple will want to hire a professional photographer. But, and this is a big but, if you’re one of those people who likes doing things differently you already know that about yourself and you don’t need Vogue to tell you to do it. Instead, what Vogue might end up doing is convincing couples that professional wedding photos are no longer the socially acceptable or cool thing to do, and while I assume few will follow this advice, I’d hate for some poor couple to end up without photos of their special day because they thought that’s what everybody’s doing these days.
A wedding is (hopefully) a once-in-a-lifetime event and one of the most special days in any couple’s relationship. Don’t detract from it by making your guests the photographers, and don’t detract from your memories by only having crappy photos from disposable cameras.
[Lead image by Jessica Branstetter]
Filed Under:
Tagged With:
Liron Samuels
Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel. When he isn’t waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses. You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.
Related Posts
Hey Vogue, This Is Why Couples Should Hire Professional Wedding Photographers
If we didn’t hire a professional wedding photographer, this is what we’d be left with
You should not feed your Wedding photographers, Brides Magazine says
Vogue Portugal under fire over romanticizing mental health on magazine cover
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
81 responses to “Vogue Magazine Says You Shouldn’t Hire Professional Wedding Photographers”
Vogue Magazine should stfu.
“..wedding photos are no longer the socially acceptable or cool thing to do” .. Says who? Wedding photography isn’t about being socially accepted or to be cool !
Do they really believe it’s about self-exposure on social media ?
It’s for the couple to have some decent handcrafted images in high quality, with straight horizons, correct exposure, colors and all what a professional can do better than the uncle with a “nice camera” and all the instagram-ladies.
This is the most retarded I’ve heard Vogue say. Period.
I’m sure @voguemagazine doesn’t hire pro photographers or reporters coz relying on readers to send in their own stuff is ok
it seems so
Exactly
……… Yeah I’ve got absolutely no comment for that load of bs
Is Vogue filled only with Instagram photos? Do they still even print magazines?
People who live thier lives on the rules and opinions set by Vogue deserve everything they get.
I don’t photograph weddings nor do I plan to…nonetheless this sounds like horrible advice from Vogue. I pity the bride/groom who read this without considering the generally bad quality of most folks cell phone pictures, and disposable cameras are even worse. Oy! To do without a pro-photographer due to budget constraints is one thing, but to choose this alternative path because it sounds ‘current’ or to avoid the distraction (?) of a photographer sounds like newlyweds sowing seeds of regret…my $0.02.
yeah and @voguemagazine doesn’t take its own advice because it’s ridiculous
I am not a niched wedding photographer… and I am very happy for that desicion, but to have a publication like Vogue drop a bomb like that is as close as an insulting slap in the face of professional Wedding Studios and photographers that have made a carreer not to mention an outmost commitment to make sure you have the most awesome collection of photographs from one of the most special days in your life… the fact that they suggest to leave this to your enhibriated friends for the celebration or to your hundred of snapshots from your friends phones from their seat is propostrous!
If you are going to get married in a bar and have your friends around that is another story but it is almost disrespecful the fact that that article was even published.
I wonder what would happen if instead of Vogue doing its magazine from 100% professional photographs from advertises, fashion photojournalists and not to even mention the HUNDRED of photographers and studios they use around the world they would rely on the bunch of fashionistas with their cell phones by the cat walk to do their coverage or to the assitant makeup artist to take a model portrait or a fashion shoot.
Please… I am NOT even a wedding photographer and this completely outraged me…
Knee-jerk defensive reactions aside, they’re not completely wrong: paying big money for wedding photos that’ll get dumped in a drawer and forgotten isn’t rational. It all depends on what the needs of the wedding couple actually are – stripped of commercial self-interests and peer pressure.
It’s also interesting that the most compelling wedding video around recently was shot by a dog.
if you choose to dump it in the drawer – so be it.
But stop being general like every couple does that.
That’s just stupid.
That cuts both ways: not every couple ignores their photos – just like not every couple looks at them ever again.
It all depends on the needs of the individual instance: sometimes following the general advice to hire a wedding photographer is a waste of money.
Just doing a quick run through on my head and I can count at least a half dozen married couples I know that actually have their wedding photo(s) nicely framed and displayed. They’re from all walks of life in different parts of the country.
Sweet, they’d fall into the latter category. When I do a similar count, I can count a half-dozen married couples I know that don’t: so we can readily agree that both options exist.
Which means that each couple should be making that judgement call based on their personal needs, not based on pressure from commercial interests.
Yep; our wedding shoot cost high four figures edging into five (including very fancy album). We have four photos framed around the house, and the album has come out on average once every three years. There were better things the money could have gone on.
That’s what happens when you ‘put your album away’. Put it somewhere more accessible.
There’s very little about the wedding industry that is rational from the consumer’s point of view. It is all carefully constructed towards levering as much money out of the couple’s pockets as possible by appealing to their sense of propriety, panic over what other people might think if they depart from the societal norms and appealing to a princess culture for many brides. It’s a thoroughly weird social ritual
Have seen things where the couple purchased a number of disposable cameras so the guests could do the pictures, can be really cool. One wedding I was in charge of the mother of the groom’s camera and on being told their weren’t enough pictures of the bouquets I got lots of pics of the flowers with all sorts of people lol. The picture of the flowers with the grandmother was used for the front of her memorial booklet
Your wedding gown is never used again. Neither are the flowers that dry up. Most couples love professionally taken photos. Would vogue allow its cover photos to be taken by an amateur with a disposable cam? Heck, would they even agree if someone said that fashion magazines are out of our times and called for a stoppage to reading them ?
Actually, a number of people I know chose their wedding “gowns” so that they would be reusable – such as buying a nice corset instead. Flowers are not reusable, but don’t cost that much either – perhaps other people have other priorities in what their wedding should be?
Last time I was as at wedding where they relied on disposibles…the bride was horrified of the drunk pornography she got from them…dozes of crotch shots, bathroom shots, up the dress shots…etc. She cried because out of about 25 cameras (all of which cost about $5-10 plus processing) she got maybe a couple dozen semi-usable shots. And as for the “mobile phone” shots on Facebook, etc…some nice ones, but ALL low res barely printable at 5×7.
Well, her friends tell a lot about her.
NEVER trust a once in a while photographer for once in a lifetime moments!
Think about it: 10 years after your wedding…will you still be able to:
fit your dress, – Maaaaybe?
rejoice with your wedding party, – Depends?
visit your wedding venue, – Sometimes?
smell and touch your expensive bouquet and boutonnieres? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
taste your wedding cake, – YUK!
view your day via images? YES! YES! YES!
With that said, as soon a VOGUE lays off all of it’s professional photogs and retouchers…let’s see the wedding pics THEY post. HA!
I gave disposble camera to each table and every kid in the place got them and took pics of each other. Sorry but I don’t agree with Vogue’s view. Friends taking pics is great but I want one person there whose focus is the couple, the family, and then the guests. If you have a few friends wih great cameras and some experience it might work(heck I even shot a wedding for a young friend once and did some great shots and found out some things too late!) So do both but ask the guest to do before and afer wedding shots. The worst is having guests getting in the way of your day.
I agree…you can still supply the disposibles, but only for the same reason you supply a PhotoBooth…fun.
I suspect Molly wants brides to save some coin for the expensive wedding gowns they sell.
“Vogue.com’s Weddings Contributor is the creative director of Stone Fox Bride. Her favorite pastimes include missing the nineties and talking about her feelings.”
http://stonefoxbride.com/collections/gowns
Clickbait at its finest.
i went hook, line and sinker… and i dont care. It is cool to share opinions.
In that case why doesn’t Vogue employees give their kids disposables for their mag covers and spreads!
Every idiot has a right to their opinions, even those at Vogue.
You get what you pay for. You pay for nothing, you get nothing…
“It made sense back in the olden days, pre–touchscreen tablets and Pinterest pins, when the whole world didn’t have their own fashion blog. Having the actual perfect-bound glossy magazine on your coffee table
seemed like the only proof that fashion actually took place.
If an expensive magazine subscription is not your thing, why not favourite some fashion blogs from your friends or let your stylistically challenged colleagues go to town? You’ll
end up with hilarious and candid outfits without the pressure of
“subscriptions.””
If she gets sick, does she decide to let her drunken friends treat her, rather than blow money on one of those “doctors”?
Oh well Vogue magazine better start taking their own photos hey…no need for professional photographers so you say?
I would like to see a disposable camera/iPhone do this ?
There were so many more important moments of our life together than the wedding itself. Why would I spend that kind of money on some photos? (no question, pro photos) In old days wedding was an occasion when the whole family got together and everybody was nicely dressed. Truly an opportunity to take a few photos. Today it is not the case. Honestly the (US) price of a higher end photographer could cover a vacation in an Asian country. Well, wouldn’t hesitate if the choice is offered.
I know that there are loads of people here who make a living out of the wedding hype. I’m sorry, I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but wedding photography is like Coke, just sugary water and marketing.
Can’t wait to see ur non sugary water wedding photo album made by your guests and your phone.
Jeeez, you don’t need to spend thousands on a WEDDING photographer. Want some cool photos. Get a photographer and get some photos. Not on your wedding day. If you add “wedding” to anything, it automatically triples the price. The wedding is not the most important day of your life. It’s a lie.
The most important days are the ones like when you met, when you got a baby, whatever. Even signing a mortgage is more significant.
Got it now?
In the same vein, i guess buying designer clothes is no longer really necessary. We can just wait for Target or Khols to copy the styles and buy it cheaper from there. We also don’t have to buy Vogue to know what the style trends are. We could just use the internet for that.
Foolish advice!
Says the magazine that uses professional photographers for images within this article…
Says that magazine that is build on the work of profesional photographers.
So many friends of mine went for the cheap option of camera phones or for-free family members… and now have said they should have hired a pro cause they have shit for photos.
As a professional photographer I agree! The first thing I ask my client is…do you need professional photography of will mobile phone quality be OK. If you need good quality images which rival anything anyone with a mobile phone of throw-away camera can produce, get a professional photographer, else just ask your friends if you are happy with low quality memories.
Who is going to manage the ceremony and the reception if there isn’t a professional photographer running the show, telling people when and where to stand, etc. Spend the money and hire a pro to do the work.
Um, worst advice ever. I hate my wedding photos because I hired a hack. 16 years later, STILL one of my biggest regrets is not spending more money on a GREAT photographer.
Sorry to hear that =/
okay…you shouldnt buy their magazines then.
http://www.bookmorebrides.com/7-reasons-why-hiring-an-amateur-photographer-for-your-wedding-is-a-huge-mistake/
The photographer we hired for my son’s wedding was fantastic, BECAUSE he was practically invisible. I hardly remember seeing him, but he took great shots and went the extra mile as well.
Contrast this to a ceremony full of selfie-takers, and what would you want your wedding day to be like?
I would suggest Vogue is a little out of touch.
More and more couples are having ‘unplugged’ weddings and asking for the guests to help them celebrate their day and not have their snouts stuck in their mobile phones and cameras all day – that’s why they hired a photographer.
Reality is, if you are spending $3500 on a dress, $600+ on flowers then suits, cars, reception etc etc, why would you want to have the only historical record of that life event, captured by people who have no idea what they’re doing or intoxicated. What a ridiculous suggestion.
Now if you are getting married on the beach in your bikini and having a BBQ in your backyard – sure, go for it.
Like everything, those that value it will pay for it, those who don’t won’t and I highly doubt that Vogue will have any influence either way.
Love the fact you have used a professional wedding photograph for this article!! Really backs up your ‘theory’ that you don’t need a pro. Perhaps you can now just use your phones to capture images for your glossy magazine too – I mean if it’s good enough for the public surely it’s good enough for you – sorry but you are really mugging people off by suggesting it – round of applause for Vogue!!
WORST WEDDING ARTICLED I’VE READ IN YEARS!
Some traditions have seen their best days… BUT…
Pass around a hat?
DIY photography?
PUH LEEZE!
Flipping though page after page of glamorous, high end photography is why people pick a copy of Vogue in the first place. Why on earth would they suggest you choose to have a snapshot of your wedding instead of professional photos that capture your day, making you look your most beautiful and provide you with an album as a keepsake you will treasure forever? Shame on you Vogue. You’ve cheapened the very art that you showcase.
hmmmm…lets let the pics speak for themselves – Can’t beat the REAL thing baby. Pro Photogs are worth every penny and then some!
One of Vogue’s $300,000 salaried photographers should accomplish this shot with a cardboard camera according to “Molly”. Beautiful shot! http://www.naturaltouchphotos.com
This advise is madness on steroid!!
Wow…. who photographs for Vogue? They should feel a little less valued right now.
Should have used a cellphone photo for the heading photo instead, to prove how great cellphone photos are (with peoples thumbs over the lenses included)!
Horrible advice!! I have been married 35 years, the most treasured item in our home are our wedding pictures. The cake is gone, the flowers have died, family members have died, and that is what we have left to share with our children and grandchildren. I am so thankful they were done professionally and they are beautiful. Next I will add, I am a photographer. The smiles my work brings two faces, the memories I am giving families, pictures are not replaceable. The average person does not know how to center a camera, set the shutter speed, set the lighting, pose people, nor can they get action shots without blurs, my advice is to spend more money on your photographs then on your cake and your flowers. I would say that if I were not a photographer.
This is the most ridiculous article I have ever seen. I have been a wedding photographer for 35 years and have seen many trends over the years but this one take the cake. If you are a bride and have an upcoming wedding and take this advice you will regret it. Your guests are there to celebrate with you and partake of the day and eat and drink and enjoy. A professional photographer is there to work for you and captures your whole day and is able to produce beautiful photos regardless of the circumstances, think after spending $$$$$$$ for your wedding why would you leave the lasting memory of the day to chance. It is absurd Vogue shame on you for even suggesting this. I would love to see the feedback if anyone actually foolish enough to take this advice. I can see Vogue getting sued many time over.
You are so correct! http://www.naturaltouchphotos.com
26 years ago I asked a friend to photograph my wedding. For 26 years I’ve wished that Id hired a pro. How can you diminish what a pro can create vs friends with cell phones? Why hire a florist, band, wedding planner, fill in the blanks. And for goodness sakes, make a book ! Get those digital images off a computer.
WORST “advise” ever, if you could even call it that. Pictures aside form memories are the only thing the couple will have and pass down to their children. There just so much wrong with Vouge has to say about this. I cant even begin to sum it up. One main point is, other then the professional photographer who else is there to guide how the day flows? I personally have countless times had to guide guests, the bridal party, the couple, and family members in order to keep on a time frame so the day ran smooth. We are not just photographers but the main time keepers to help the day flow smooth for all involved.
Stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Maybe vogue should follow their own advice and let the mail clerk do the fashion shoots for them. The only reason this was written was to allow for more of a brides budget to go towards the dress sold by the writer of this trash.
The pro photography rule, if there was ever such a rule, has been broken many, many, many times before. Vogue’s not pushing any boundaries here… just some buttons…
Sounds like you agree with their advice!
I’m not sure where did you get this? All I’m saying is Vogue is trying to push crap that has been done many times over as fresh new ideas. Clickbait at its finest.
So they shouldn’t pick up and pay to read professionally written and quality printed magazines anymore either?
That’s ridiculous advice. We didn’t have professional wedding photos done and what we had from guests was … well, snap shots. 12 years later, I still regret that decision. And to hear this “advice” from Vogue, who certainly doesn’t have its spreads shots by random people on the streets with disposable cameras, this is reckless, disappointing, and, quite frankly, hypocritical.
So, on their 25th wedding anniversary the couple (assuming they’re still a couple) wants to reminisce and look on the faces of loved ones they’ve since lost. But they took Vogue’s advice, and all they have are poorly-composed, blurry and badly exposed disposable camera pictures and grainy, badly-lit photos shot by their guests with their smart phones so those faces they’re aching to see are barely visible.
Wonderful advice, Vogue.
No shit!
Dear Vogue Editor,
Who photographed your wedding? I will bet money you hired a professional photographer and have amazing portraits. No cell phone, ipad or disposable camera will ever, ever replace a professional experienced photographer. You have let your readers down by recommending a cheap, unreliable, uncontrollable alternative to a professional.
What do brides regret most about their wedding day? Not spending more money on photography.
So disappointing Vogue. You need to print an apology to your readers and to every amazing photographer working hard in the wedding industry.
Vogue would want this beautiful photo shot with a cardboard camera. How stupid are they! http://www.naturaltouchphotos.com
ROFL. I think Vogue is just conducting a social experiment – seeing the extent of their influence on the followers of the current trends. The reality is that, of course, the wedding album is for the parents and the kids of the couple getting married, not for them personally, so I suppose Vogue will have some success in convincing your brides (the deciders) to care less about what mom and dad think. Another step in the dissolution of the nuclear family, perhaps?
— Gene
http://www.LAphotographer.org
This from a publishing group that has a magazine called “Brides” where they use nothing but Instagram and Facebook images because this is what their advertisers want. Indeed! Grow some Vogue and be cutting edge or just cut this fool of a writer.
You are clueless. I’ve seen countless weddings that have their friends and fam do this and 99% of the time it doesnt work out. Sure, you’ll get some good stuff here and there, but there’s a reason why there are professionals for this sort of thing. It’s an important day, and pros have done it time and time again. Seen it all and their job, my job, is to be there and capture the moments not enjoy the day. That’s part of a wedding you know that right? Allowing your guests to enjoy the company of others and the event, not be on their phones and have a camera in front of their eye the whole time. Let your guests enjoy the special moments and truly be there. This is a joke.
Hypocrites… Vogue has made their fortune hiring professional photographers to grace the cover and pages of their magazine for decades. Now they dare say that a professional photographers skills are equal to the average selfie taker? That’s like saying eating chicken at a five star restaurant is equivalent to eating chicken nuggets at McDonalds. If they feel that professional photographers hold no artistic or technical value then, they should take a bit of their own medicine.
I challenge Vogue to find anyone off the street who has no photographic skills or, interest outside of the mandatory daily ‘selfie’, to photograph their celebrities, fashion designers latest clothe lines, all of their advertisers products (make up / beer / jewelry, etc.) with the average cellphone and lets see how much of a difference it makes to the visual aesthetic of their beloved magazine.
Oh, I’m not talking about doing this as a ‘promotional stunt’, I’m talking about doing it as a permanent business practice from here on out on a global scale . If Vogue feels that it’s ok to belittle the skills and livelihood of a wedding photographer by implying that they hold zero value at a newly married couples most special of days, then they should prove that they are not hypocrites and apply it as their own business model or publicly apologize for their ridiculous article.
Vogue, how dare you speak down to all the hard working artists and photographers who’ve for decades proven that they set themselves apart by contributing beauty and grace to the blank canvass that is your magazine? Photographers such as:
Edward Steichen (1879-1973)
Irving Penn (1917-2009)
Helmut Newton (1920-2004)
Richard Avedon (1923-2004)
Patrick Demarchelier (b. 1943)
Peter Lindbergh (b. 1944)
Bruce Weber (b. 1946)
Annie Leibovitz (b. 1949)
Herb Ritts (1952-2002)
Steven Meisel (b. 1954
You should truly feel ashamed for making your readers believe that the art, skill, inspiration and hard work of masters such as these and future ones alike hold no value. Until you’re willing to do the same for your worldwide business, we professional photographers demand an apology or suggest you keep your opinions to yourself in this regard.
By the way, I’m not a wedding photographer. But, I will defend my artistic skills along with those of my fellow pro photographers alike.
Obviously the writer is naive. I’m not a professional wedding photographer, but to
suggest that a disposable camera is capable of producing lifetime
classic photographs (that can also be shared) is crazy. I certainly see a
need for fun candids, but the reality is that everyone with a mobile
phone is already in the way of the professional photographer AND posting
to social media. I’d much rather have a classic created by a
professional photographer that I’ll enjoy looking at for years to come.
I have never read something more ignorant and stupid as this. Vogue (a business that relies on photography for their survival) should know that disposable cameras cost $40 EACH to develop, that Instagram photos are crap and that any other photo not taken by a professional lacks composition, quality and exposure. How could a publication of such stature allow some imbecil to write such a thing – it is completely amazing. SO MANY couples that didn’t hire a professional lived to regret it and now they have to live with no beautiful images composed by someone that knows better than any one present at the wedding about how to take a great photo. Vogue – you failed miserably at trying to be hip and have an article that “breaks the rules” Oh my god! You’re so cool! And NO RINGS? What are you supposed to do a pinky promise? So stupid!
http://www.naturaltouchphotos.com