Hi As I have said on other (cooking forums) My eldest daughter is getting married in Mar 05 D.V.Two tiers of the cake are done --not a major problem!! But the Photos !!"They " the couple have booked photograher but I worry.One of My Work Collegues got married in August . We all took photos --which we thought were lovely and they were . BUT when she (the bride)analysyed them Her mother was in one photo. her brother was in another (1)She is quite upset at this as she trusted the photographer to run the show. She does not even have a photo of her on her own. Her father was in loads -giving her away etc Any advice Please
)

P.S does anyone have a list of "necessary Photos" --or desirable for want of a better word Thanks

I think that you should be really careful with your photographer. We made a mistake and now have a couple of photos that are fine and the rest seem to have the top of Ed's head chopped off - he isn't that tall
I know that a good photographer is expensive but I think they are worth it.
Ours was cheap and so were the results.

Also make sure that your daughter sits down with him/her and talk about their expectation, the style they like and what they require in terms of family photos. A wedding photographer should organise this automatically but she may need to check that they do have a list of what you would like.

Also my advice to the bride to be is that even though it feels tedious at the time and you would rather be joining in the merriment it is worth taking the time to get loads of photos as by the time you throw out the ones you don't like there are generally not that many left.

Get your daughter and her husband to be to write a list of all of the people/groups of people they want photos taken with/of. Get a friend or family member who wants to help and knows both sides of the family to organise the people into groups on the day - give the photographer the same list and tell him/her whats happening......thats what I'm doing for my wedding (although it helps that the photographer is my step father).

Also, try to use a photographer who uses digital photography - then you are not limited to the number of photos you can have taken so much......

Emma and a friend are "doing" a wedding this weekend. She has been gathering books and magazines to get extra ideas, and has had several meetings with the bride.

My suggestion would be to get wedding mags from the library, and photocopy or sketch ideas you like - it doesn't matter about colour, it's just to give the idea.

Have traditional photos done as well as modern - what looks funky today may look silly in 20 years time.

Sit down and make a list of definite photos you want - and specify the people in them. Perhaps even have someone ticking the list off as they are taken.

I personally would NOT have digital photography. Yes there is an advantage of being able to take lots but not print them, although the photographer may not see it that way. My real concern is the keeping qualities of both the printed image and the digital files. If you really want digital photos, how about a compromise and have some film.

Wedding photos are too imortant to get wrong. Ask to see the photographer's portfolio.

Hope the wedding goes well, Janet

I agree with Janet - definately see the photographers work, talk to people who have had photos taken by the photographer, show the photographer picts from mags - there are hundreds of different styles etc.

I personally think digital photography can be of extremely high quality, but that is because my stepfather has extremely high quality equipment, so it is definately worth checking all of this out with the photographer (ie what type of camera and printer he uses). You could then even pop into a photography shop and smile nicely at the sales person and ask there opinion on the results of the combined camera/printer.

They can be of high quality at the time, but the storage of digital photographs has yet to be absolutely perfected (e.g cds/dvds have been delaminating, and are also light sensitive.)
The life of digital printing, as opposed to negative photographs is something like 25 yrs as opposed to 75+++)
The current situation is changing all the time, but I definately know what I would prefer and it would NOT be digital!

Emma posted the thread above, and is talking from a point of some knowledge, as she works after school/holidays for a photoshop and professional photographer. Janet

Emma that is really interesting - and frightening.
We do all of our photos on digital now - as in for family use.
Maybe we should do the odd roll of film as well (?)

Thank you all for your input. Unfortunately my choice of Photographer and hers differ . The person they have chosen does not come cheap. However I have spoken to her this evening and she understands what I am saying ---but she really could not care . These mundane things are of minor consequence to her now ---LOVE IS !!!!!! I know she will be sorry later so I must work on the bridesmaid --my other daughter -She is on Terra Firma - at the moment. Thank you Marion

If you take digital photos and the prints fade in, say, 25 years, you can just print a new set from your CD "negatives". If CDs don't exist in 25 years, we should all have had plenty of time to offload to whatever new recording system they have dreamed up (e.g. records to cassettes to CDs). If you're worried about the CD failing to read, make several copies, and/or use an internet storage facility, or remember they can print photos from photos these days.

There was a documentary on TV recently about CDs, saying that they are pigment based. If they come into contact with light, they are likely to be corrupted. They need to be stored VERY carefully. As a keen amateur photographer, I would not trust important photos to them at this stage.

I want to "back up" some old family photos which are currently hanging on our walls (in a passage way with no window light), and originally started to scan them and store on CD, but having discussed it with lots of people, photograpic professionals as well as computer professionals, have decided to use B&W film and copy them - as they would do if you took them into a photo shop for copy negs to be made. That way I'll have photos and negs as backups.

I have a great deal of money invested in film camera gear, and would like to add an SLR digital, which is why I have spent so much time and energy weighing up the pros and cons - for me, so far the cons out-weigh the pros.

I have been told by professionals that one of the concerns is that in the future many photos will have been lost to future historians because of the storeage issue, and because a lot of people will only keep what they can on a computer - and we all know what happens to them periodically!

Hope that helps, Janet

Janet I know I sound ignorant but having read all of the above (albeit quickly) am I to assume that printed photos that have been taken with a digital camera as opposed to processing a film have a shorter life span?

I have a lot of digital photos. One word of warning - if you do put digital photos on a CD, make 2 copies!!

I backed mine up to a CD, and when I went to take the CD out of the case, it snapped. I was very thankful that I still had copies on my PC,and I make 2 CD copies of photos now.

Claire
[www.quirk.co.nz]

Helen, Its depends on the quality of the print either you or your photo store are printing-what process is taken to get the print and what paper and ink or chemical is used to develop it and also paper.
Its not the digital camera at fault, its the storage and printing of the pictures, where as film cameras have the storage and longevity of negs and prints sorted.

The above from Emma. Too many variables, huh. Basically, if you have your printing done at a lab, ask them. If you do your printing at home, if may not last (depending on the printer, the ink and the paper). Janet