I think, given a forum more conducive to real conversation that we would be standing on more common ground than we both realize.

I fully support the point that hiring a fully skilled and equiped professional photographer will result in far superior results for the bride and groom. It costs to go first class and it should.

My point was simply that, thanks to new technology, Uncle Jeff isn’t as far off the mark as he once was. Does he understand composition? Lighting? How to work with people?

No.

But will more couples settle for close enough? That was the question.

Thanks again. Exchanging blog posts and comments aren’t ideal for a discussion such as this. I hope we can sit down some day over a Coke and hash this out. With utmost respect… – Mike Nally

There is a huge difference between being able to buy digital printing and hiring a wedding photographer. If the digital print you buy is faulty, most halfway decent companies will give you a free remake. If the wedding photographer misses the shot, has his gear fail because he charges so little money he can’t afford backups, just fails to show at all because he’s got a better offer somewhere else, is rude and ruins the wedding mood, or a hundred other things that go wrong – then there’s no do-over. None. You can’t ask the bride’s family to fly back across the pond from London next week since Uncle Henry missed the shot.

The notion that gear improving is the reason the price gap is closing is just wrong. It’s a very small part of the equation.

There’s an old joke. The famous painter was seen on the streets of Paris one day offering $500 portraits. The business man, wanting to impress his wife signed up. He sat down his pretty wife and the famous painter commenced to doing a marvelous portrait of her in about five minutes. The business man loved the portrait but uncomfortably complained, “Wow it’s great but $500 for five minutes work?” to which the famous painter replied, “No sir – $500 to cover the 30 years of practice to know how to do it in five minutes.”