Hey Vogue, This Is Why Couples Should Hire Professional Wedding Photographers
Jan 14, 2016
Share:
Vogue magazine caused quite a bit of rage among photographers, along with copious amounts of ridicule, when it recently published a list of 10 wedding “rules” to which it recommends brides-to-be say “I don’t”.
The reason for this was the magazine’s statement that couples shouldn’t hire professional wedding photographers, and should rather rely on the guests’ smartphones and disposable cameras.
These next photos, taken by wedding photographer John Warren and a guest, are the perfect answer to Vogue’s nonsense. As the saying goes, a picture’s worth a thousand words.
Stating that all wedding guests have “phones with cameras on them”, and asking “why not scatter some disposable cameras around the party and let your drunken guests go to town?” the magazine claimed that professional photographers will detract from the celebration.
When Stephanie, one of John’s brides, saw the article, she created the comparison below and captioned it “And this is why you hire a professional wedding photographer”.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BAY2UW8LcXZ/
John told DIYP that “The image was taken at the start of the reception, part of the MC’s hilarious opening was to take a selfie with the couple”. This was so perfectly suited for the Vogue article that I asked him if it was staged, but he said he shot it live and it was not staged.
In fact, John says he hadn’t even seen the selfie image captured by the guest’s smartphone until the Vogue story hit and Stephanie created the comparison and shared it on Instagram.
“It’s a perfect example of why a professional photographer is so important!” John said, agreeing with the comments made by countless others on this matter. “It’s just one of the dumbest articles by a magazine – especially of the calibre of Vogue!” he concluded.
So I think I’ll keep recommending couples hire professionals to capture their weddings, but perhaps Vogue should look into getting drunk readers to send in their smartphone photos for its next issue. After all, all those beautiful, professionally-taken photos in the magazine really detract from the raw essence of what it’s all about.
Have a look at John’s website and Facebook page for many more examples of why you should hire a pro to capture your special day.
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
Vogue Magazine Says You Shouldn’t Hire Professional Wedding Photographers
If we didn’t hire a professional wedding photographer, this is what we’d be left with
Dear wedding couples – Stop asking friends to shoot your wedding just because they have a nice camera
Hey photographers – When you give it away you diminish all of our work
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
47 responses to “Hey Vogue, This Is Why Couples Should Hire Professional Wedding Photographers”
Jason, I’m sure you’ll appreciate this one too :D
Ricardo
So uh does Vogue only use images from random people with smartphones, or do they use images from professional photographers….?
Why would covering an event such as a wedding not be important enough to HIRE someone to record it in good taste?
one of the strictest requirements of the industry regarding photos IS Vogue… Full Frame in all their journalistic assigments, proper light NO post editing etc etc … for their studio in some instances the demand Medium Format… its like WTF Vogue was thinking when they published this shit article in the first place.
No post editing? Don’t make me laugh
When you are doing a photojournalist gig you are demanded NOT to do any post editing work to your photo other than SLIGHT color correction or exposure and crop …. you touch or edit anything in that photo and you can be fired.
That is precisely one of the HUGE challenges of photojournalists.
Fully aware of that Frank as an ex news tog, but no editing in Vogue??? Somehow I doubt that
http://www.thegloss.com/2013/10/16/fashion/vogue-worst-photoshop-covers-ever/
awesome. It really bothered me to that vogue stated the photog thing. Esp since their mag is basically a photog mag.
This is simply another example of rich publishing companies having no respect for the craft of professional photography, a craft upon which they built their circulation.
I think @Vogue was successful in their attempt to troll all #photographers for free publicity…
One word… publicity.
Vogue doesn’t have the same public in the age of Internet as it had in the age of Print. Now they need to shock and stir a bit harder to feel relevant.
And……this is why couples should hire uncle bobs over professional photographers :P
(trolling intent, don’t take this seriously)
IMHO – this says nothing to the couple other than ‘DSLR is better than iPhone’ which is to be expected…and doesn’t really showcase the photographer’s skills
I’d love an article featuring something like Jerry Ghionis’ iPhone photos (that came in 4th place in WPPI album competition) compared to a guest using DSLR, that would be a much stronger comparison than this one
You can see Jerry’s phone shots here http://www.jerryghionis.com/the-wedding-of-josh-and-amber-select-shots-taken-with-the-iphone/
Awesome thank for sharing this link.
Jerry is a professional. It’s NOT the camera. Being a PRO is NOT about the equipment. Put the same DSLR in the hands of some drunken wedding guest and they won’t fair better than with an iPhone. It’s about talent, an eye, experience at what to look for, when to look for it and being there at the right moment. I went to a wedding last October as a guest. GREAT wedding reception (Groom side was from Ireland and they had EVERY family and friend imaginable there..and we Irish can party). I did NOT take my pro equipment…I was a guest and I wanted to ENJOY myself. I took iPhone shots..not many, but the bride hired a real professional to shoot it. Had 4 ppl in the crew…video, photos, photobooth, etc. Well lite and GORGEOUS shots…Though everyone sent or posted pics on Facebook, etc and some were pretty nice..but they did not live up to the professional ones.
My saying has always been…you spend $10K on a dress you wear ONCE. $1000 on a cake that most guest don’t even eat, $20K on over priced food, $2K on a boring wedding band, God know how much on booze for guests who will probably get too drunk and make fools out themselves, many of whom you will NEVER see again. Yet, the one thing you will still have 5, 10, 30 years down the road are your wedding photos. Yet, that is what most brides (and now Vogue) want you to cheap out on? (note that the numbers are just to make my point).
The term “DSLR” isn’t used once in this article. All it’s saying it a professional photographer is better than a “drunk guest going to town”.
Don’t be so quick to assume things, and actually think about what the article is saying.
What exactly am I assuming?
the article is trying to prove the obvious fact professionals are better than drunk guests right? perhaps you should think about what I am saying..
As a viewer – this photo doesn’t really convey why you need a professional photographer – I can imagine a member of the general public say ‘well of course a DSLR is going to take better photos than a phone’ – what do you say then?
Which is why I’m proposing switching the mediums, have a pro using phone and a noob using a top end DSLR, and then the comparison will be far more striking
the pro will stil blow the doors off a newb… check out the Digital Rev series of Pro photographer cheap camera and you will see pro photographers even using a buzz light year camera for a shoot.
exactly my point..
Digital Rev is a strong series precisely because the pro is using a cheap camera
Using cheap camera and taking a better photo than your expensive camera – that proves something
using an expensive camera and taking a better photo than an iPhone – proves nothing – which is the main context of this article
I agree with Will, I’m sure the photographer is talented, but the right photo looks like a photo anyone can take with the proper gear – it is a great shot, but not one that is overly ‘skill’ based, and I’m sure many amateurs are reading this and thinking they can take the same photo. This doesn’t really sell the fact you need a professional.
the right phto IS A CANDID SHOT HEATHER!!! CANDID SHOT. It is NOT intended to be a full blow bridal shot JEEZZZZ this place is starting to look like DPREVIEW!!!!!!
The shot is irrelevant – the point is using a DSLR and taking a better version of the same shot than an iPhone’s front camera – doesn’t really prove WHY they need a professional photographer, it just proves that they need someone with a DSLR
I know this photographer John Warren – he operates in my city and I know he is a really good photographer – but this post doesn’t showcase his skills at all
Sorry, Heather, but “anyone” can’t take that shot. In the first place, most people wouldn’t even think to see that as a great photo opp. In the second place, if you really know what you’re looking at, there’s some really great technique involved there, which the photographer had to do on-the-fly, that you’re just not going to get by simply handing an expensive camera to some random person. The fact is, the professional knew how to USE that camera, and get the best out of it. I’m sorry, but “anyone” just doesn’t know how to do that. You can give the same exact equipment to some random guy who’s never really used it before and a serious pro, and the pro is going to get the best results every time. Because, as has been mentioned before, it’s not the camera that does the work here, it’s the photographer. All the best equipment in the world isn’t going to automatically make a great photographer. The camera doesn’t teach you how to compose, how to wait for the right moment, how to pose people, how to properly expose, how to manipulate light, how to properly focus…the list could go on. The fact is, this is one tiny random moment that most people would simply miss. The professional knows how to keenly concentrate on every seemingly insignificant thing, and to know what moments warrant capturing. He knew his job so well that a candid moment like this one was already on his radar and he was able to capture it to perfection. That takes talent, skill, and experience that “anyone” doesn’t have.
ARE U MENTAL!!!???OR BLIND?! the left photo is blurry not composed properly lets not even talk about light… and the one in the right is a proper candid shot of the event and you say that statement..??? wow dude sorry man we cant help you.
You’re the one who’s blind – you don’t even get what I’m saying
Nobody criticised the right photo!?!?! Nobody is praising the left either??
Any man and his dog can tell the right > left – but the question is why?
The article is titled ‘why couples should hire a pro’, my point is, taking a better photo than an iPhone front camera selfie doesn’t really prove that…it just proves that better camera = better photo, it doesn’t say much about the photographer themselves
On the other hand, if this were a comparison between a professional with an iPhone taking a better photo than a guest with a DSLR – that would be a strong comparison and really tells the world that it’s the skills that count – get it!?
I really don’t understand you. FMHO you’re just saying that the article is basing better camera = better photo, but they’re not. They’re arguing against the idea from Vogue that just because guest have access to smartphones or dispensable cameras would provide similar quality as a profesional photographer. They don’t mention all the equipment that a profesional photographer brings to the wedding and post editing work.
I think you completely missing the point. The original Vogue article said to forgo hiring a professional photographer in favor of guest photos taken with phones or disposable cameras, and culling them from facebook (never mind the fact that facebook image compression destroys print-ability of most photos). The comparison above shows the relative difference between what you would get(by and large) from your guests using their smart phones and what a professional photographer can produce. Sure a profession can take striking photos with a smart phone, however it is unlikely that a large chunk of a wedding receptions guests are going to be professional photographers and you are more likely to get photos like the selfie above.
I dont think any one is saying that you cant get nice photos with a smart phone, I think we all know that the average wedding guest knows nothing of composition, or light or even how to hold a camera steady. Again the comparison is about what vogue is wrongly suggesting to guests, not what is possible with a skilled photographer.
A professional photographer knows how to blend in, how to not disturb. That’s why he’s a professional. Obviously every such event has it’s “photo moments” for which the subjects take a pause from partying to pose for the picture, but for capturing the party itself and the spontaneity of the people you can’t rely solely on the people themselves and their smartphones. As someone said it, don’t be cheap about your unique moments in life and their memory.
I shoot weddings and i can say without a shadow of of a doubt 99% of guests have no idea how to compose a shot or read light, the amount of guests i see standing in front of bright windows or with the sun directly behind them taking shots of themselves is astounding , and detail shots taken an inch away with the flash blasting all detail out of he shot, and in fact despite the ton of information and advice available on line most people still cannot even compose a half decent shot ( we are literally still talking tops of heads cut off.)
Just let people who let magazines dictate how they live their lives get on with it and pay the concequences. I’ll work for the people who can think for themselves.
100% true, you could go on forever about the stupid things non photographers do when taking pictures. but they’re not photographers, they’re guests trying to take a “personal” picture to remember the moment.
you can’t expect them to know how to take great pictures.
otherwise vogue would be right in suggesting couples not to book a photographer ;)
the point Willy……. the point brother……..think about the point………..Vogue said “Don’t book Will, get your mates to take shots on their iPhones” ……. Vogue said ‘DON’T BOOK WILL’…….. this blog is nothing about comparing iPhones to DLSR’s or how good Jerry is with his phone or how good my shot is, any one of us would’ve taken the shot I did – don’t just argue for arguments sake Will – be a team player, support your fellow photographers
Yea I saw that Vogue article – it’s stupid
But why lower yourself to their level? I would feel insulted if people compared my work to guests’ iPhone photos..and told me THAT’s why they need a pro – Do you really want the reason people should hire you to simply be because you take better photos than an iPhone? You take better photos than 90% of photographers I’ve seen in Melbourne – I’d rather THAT be the reason people book you
Vogue also told people to get matching tattoos instead of wedding rings – I don’t think Cartier really gives a damn either – if only photographers were all that bad ass – taking a stupid article too seriously shows how weak and insecure the photography industry really is.
And also nah, you should know by now I’m far from a team player :P
It’s like if a magazine said, “try hiring kids with legos instead of professional builders”
I don’t think any self respecting builder would bother trying to argue against such a stupid claim, much less trying to PROVE builders are better than kids with legos…
The best is that photographers made a free world wide advertise for vouge by comenting this nonsens text.
but if we kept quiet we would be granting this nonsense validity… so yeah i will voice actually scream my opposition to this stupidity.
Stupidity is a stupidity people have they own minds, if some one gives a f… to have photos made by a pro wedding photographer you wont change they minds and if some one wants such photos a vouge artical wont change it by comenting it you yust shop peopla that thete is such a posibility that they did not consider so commenting on this stupidety is worse then this artical.
So, Vogue, why hire Annie Lebowitz to photograph your covers when all of your interns have phones with camera on them!
I love that it was the BRIDE who first created the comparison! Way to go, Stephanie! She didn’t even hesitate to let the world know that it was not a mistake for her to hire a professional photographer for her wedding.
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.
Incredibly irresponsible on Vogues part. Sure, there are a few “pro” photographers that do more harm than good. I have worked with many that do a great job. The tragic part is that some bride will take their idiotic advice and go without a photographer. A choice that will end up as a sad regret.
A better reason to use professionals is the results you get…for example, doubt you would get this from a bunch of smartphones. This was a wedding I attended on Halloween. vimeo.com/151696651
I own a venue in Chicago Prairie Production.We are a photo studio but host close to 90 weddings a year,I see some painfully bad photogrfaphers pass thru saying that they are pros.I see them one or two seasons and then a new batch pass thru and so on We are the only day light stage left in town.I have over the past 28 years hosted many Vogue and celeb shoots so I have seen the top celeb shooters,it hurts my brain to see a bad shooter at a girl’s wedding.
Not sure you would get results looking like this if you shot the wedding with a smart phone… http://joedantone.com/ballroom-at-the-ben-wedding/
Its also funny because they hire professional photographers to shoot their magazines. Seems like this was just an article they decided to write that would cause some talk to bring some traffic into Vogue.
I like the idea of using guests’ photos. Some of them might be quite good! Buuuuuuut, don’t forgo the photographer, unless you don’t mind mostly amateur photos. We didn’t have a professional photographer for our weddings (two countries, long story), and frankly, we’re totally ok with that. It was our choice, and it’s not one that we have ever regretted. In an era of “everything perfect”, our wedding was rustic, relaxed, and intimate. But if that’s not your cup of tea, then get a professional to capture all those moments that you put so much work into. Don’t leave it in the hands of amateurs.
Perhaps Vogue should try out publishing an article as a collaborative effort by drunken authors. It would certainly be memorable! ;-)