October 9, 2012

Eight.

So!  Today is our eighth wedding anniversary.  We're going out to dinner tonight to celebrate.  I can't wait for some normal adult conversations with my favorite person and an uninterrupted meal that I don't have to share.  It's really the simple things that are complete luxuries these days.

West Side Market 100
Gee.  I wonder why.
So we were reminiscing and ended up getting out our photo album.   Which prompted a whole discussion about how completely terrible our wedding pictures are.

CRW_1776_RJ
No, really.  It's ok.  We've both come to terms with it.  See we got married at absolutely the WORST time for photography.  2004 was right on the cusp of digital.  Which means that everything was still based on old photography methods. 

For example our wedding album looks like this:

photo.JPG
Old school, silver edges, limited amount of prints.  Not even close to one of the fancy graphic-designed books that most people we know have.

8 years ago today!

But!  It does have 94 pictures in it.  Which is a huge amount when you consider that the pricing lists we originally discussed with the photographer were based on rolls of film.  Yes.  Film.  At 36 per roll the original plan for our wedding day was to have 108 pictures taken TOTAL.

photo.JPG
So when our photographer shot digital we were thrilled.  Because that meant that they took wait for it... 274 pictures. Today it's crazy to even think of having less than 2000 taken of a wedding day.

The downside to the digital conversion, of course, was that our wedding was shot on an early DSLR.  Which I'm guessing was less powerful than the camera on my iphone. So even the blowups in our wedding alum start to get a little blurry:

photo.JPG
This would be an awesome picture.  If we weren't blurry.
And there was NO option to purchase full digital copies.  Nope.  Now that's just included.  Then I had to beg and plead and pay a ton of money for a CD of very small files.  The whole set is on flickr here but don't try to blow them up bigger than this:

CRW_1860_RJ
348x232 pixles should be enough for anything you'd ever want, right?
 Or heaven forbid print them.  No bueno.

There's also quite a bit missing from the day.  Mainly because photographers were still thinking analog.  If you only get 108 pictures total those need to count.  So you take the posed family photos and none of the candid ones that are so popular now.

CRW_1831_RJ
Most of our photographs are some variation of this.
CRW_1851_RJ
Or nonsense like this.  It's possible that our photographer was a douchebag now that I think about it...
Any of the detail shots are ones that I specifically asked for.  Now photographers take tons of detail pictures as a matter of course.  Dress!  Shoes!  Rings! Cake!  Invites!  Bouquet!  All photographed individually and completely.  This is what we got:

CRW_1932_RJ
Quick put all of the details in one shot!  Don't want to waste film!  Wait.
Also because it was early digital there was no post-processing.  Photoshop?  HA!  Nope.  Everything Straight Out of the Camera.  Not even the benefit of the developing process.  Oh wait.  They did do a few of the fun early digital tricks such as converting to black and white:

CRW_1853_RJ
Are you impressed?
Or terrible things with color like this:

CRW_1773_RJ
spot color makes the baby Jesus cry
At least we were spared any sepia nonsense.   Although I believe I put the smackdown on that business pre-wedding.  There is never any excuse for sepia.

We look so young!  8 years ago today. @verozarc
And yet I love me some instagram.  Go figure.

So yeah.  We got married at absolutely the worst time for photography.  But you know what?   It was the best time for US.  We were starting our adult lives and we wanted to do it together.  Completely.  Married.  And I wouldn't change that for all the shiny, modern, designed photobooks and full-sized digital images in the world.

CRW_1835_RJ
Although this does make me want to get some nice, professional photographs taken of our family... anyone know of anyone good?

Comments (11)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I have two friends (both in my knitting group) who are awesome. Margaret Janicki - www.janickiphotography.com - and Sara Neff - http://saraneffphoto.blogspot.com.
1 reply · active 651 weeks ago
*cough* I might know someone *cough*
1 reply · active 651 weeks ago
We had some blurry shots too (2003). Jealous that you get a nice dinner out. We chose to drive through the night to myrtle beach this year. How romantic. Have a great time tonight!
1 reply · active 651 weeks ago
Heather Durdil Photography...she has knit with us a time or two...do you know Heather? I don't know what she charges, but I know that she does fabulous work...she did our photos back in March.
And HarborlightPhotography.com (out of Vermillion). The owner, Judd, is a great guy, and I his sitting fees and print prices are very reasonable. :)
My recent post ...the Rest of the Story
Happy wedding anniversary!!! We were married 9 years ago but didn't even hire a photographer. We have pretty craptastic photos taken with 35mm and disposable cameras. Yep classy huh? I hope you find someone great to do your updated photos! We do them at least once a year and more than that the first year of both kids lives.
Love the wedding photos! My husband and I just celebrated 3 years of marriage in september :)

I submitted my button for a blogswap with you!

Lyndsay @ theallmylove.blogspot.com
My recent post Button Up!
Those look very familiar. We were married in 2004. I thought our pictures were so bad I that I didn't even order any. Years later our photographer offered to sell me all the digital files and negatives. I think he was BROKE so I paid him maybe like $100 for the whole lot.Lucky me - now I have all the bad cds, film and proofs!

Post a new comment

Comments by

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...