On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:54:13 -0500, bvandyk wrote:

>By the way David, I love your wedding photos.
>
>When I got married, we did not hire a photographer. I asked many friends and
>relatives with good cameras to take lots of shots and send me their sets of
>negatives so we could copy the ones we wanted. Maybe I had talented friends, but
>the shots we got echo your style. Intimate, lively shots of people chatting,
>gesturing, laughing. Almost no formal, posed shots (except the obligatory
>bride/groom family).
>
>Two weeks later, I was best man at a wedding with a "traditional" photographer.
>Aside from being a pain in the ass and disrupting the entire day, his photos are
>boring. Technically very nice, well-lit, etc., but stiff, formal, and lifeless.
>Not a single shot of anyone spontaneously laughing or leaning into someone to
>whisper an intimacy, or shaking off the formality of the service. They look a lot
>like the samples on your page.

Thanks for the comments!
BTW, I shoot video the same way - no lights or set-ups,
no interfering with the event (I stay out of the ceremony,
but try to use close-in small unattended cameras, if
possible, and concealed, if possible), no interruption of
conversations, etc., and NO DIRECTING of the event at all.
I figure that with both stills or video, I'm there to
record what goes on the best I can without changing it in
any way by being there - so it is all an available-light
(with minor assist), one-person, unobtrusive style of
coverage...
And the results, I hope, are similar to having good
amateur work (as you pointed out) - but it is my job to
cover just about everything that happens... ;-)