View Full Version : The Photo-journalistic Approach
Does the non intrusive photo-journalistic approach in wedding photography really work?
I've been doing a fair bit of research, and I don't see the top photographer taking that approach and I personally can't get anything useful without getting involved.
I understand that at the ceremony and the reception you need to step back and let things happen. But saying that, I still give them some instructions prior to the event.
(I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this point. Please advice if it isn't.)
JM Tran
09-07-2011, 1:59pm
IMO - its a big load of crap - and I do weddings on a full time basis too. The well known photographers know how to combine diff styles together in one day, and not just rely on the PJ approach to carry out their task.
Photo-journalist approach
-needs no guidance and communications skills from the photographer towards the bridal party and guests
-lacks formality and the wedding NEEDS TO KNOW YOUR PRESENCE
-obscure, abstract shots without good composition can be passed as PJ style
-lack of creative guidance and approach towards the bridal party and guests
-lack of understanding of lighting, heck some ppl will argue they will only use available light only - yeah well if u knew how to use flash and continuous lighting u can combine it!
-tend to fall back doing the same style of shots repeatedly for different weddings
To me, from my experience working with colleagues and seeing results from other colleagues and 'professionals' - the PJ style will only get you so far before you realize oh crap, I do need to actually open my mouth and direct people on how to pose, or set up a shot instead of 'floating around' to 'capture the candid moments'.
Totally agree with JM
Posed and candid and a mix is the best approach I think too. I think a documentary of the day is the way I like to see it.
I've been really annoyed with this hype, and I'm glad that I have found others who share my concern. Thank you = ) because I don't feel like the odd one out anymore!
The part that annoys me most is that the general public has heard this and they see some great images that were made to look candid, and they demand the same.There has been a couple instances where I was asked to "just take random shots". This was following the ceremony. There was nothing to take. People were huddled close to each other talking and stuffing their faces. So all I would get were mostly peoples backs, and glimpses of faces with stupid expressions.
Since then I make it perfectly clear to all the couples I meet with that my style is not photo-journalistic.
are we talking about photographer styles here? or fads? tilting a horizon or cutting off half of someone's head/body because you think that will make your photography photo-journalistic is a fad. taking photographs in an unintrusive, observant way may be your style/persona/character, which you bring to every shoot. is capturing the laughter or tears or those unexpected moments a load of crap? well if you think that life is a load of crap too then maybe. In my opinion, when people look back on their wedding day, they want to remember what they felt at the time, not just what they looked like, which will be outdated in 10 years anyway. a journalistic style should endeavor to document the experience, without fads though. if you can do that better by posing people and having more control, then that is your style and you should try to stick to that.
as a wedding tog, you should know your own style well before your customers do, and this may very well be the reason they pick you over someone else, or vice versa.
the most important thing is that you give the customer what they want.
Redgum
09-07-2011, 10:01pm
I don't think too many people here know what photo-journalism is and it's certainly not what I see described above. :)
We are talking in the realms of wedding photography. There is a big hype about the photojournalistic approach.
JM Tran
09-07-2011, 11:36pm
I don't think too many people here know what photo-journalism is and it's certainly not what I see described above. :)
Care to elaborate Redgum? I am also a journalist and do PJ stuff for publications, like you do.
but we are talking about WEDDING 'photo journalist style' here, not actual PJ work which is totally different even if it shares the same words.
Just to make my original point a bit clearer:
A few years the term "Photojurnalistic Approach" appeared in the wedding photography world. This has been misunderstood by the public and new wedding photographers. They have the idea that the photographer would arrive, say hello, then disappear in the background. Eight hours later he/she would reappear to say good night, and goes home. Taking this approach, we are meant to come up with artistic and timeless photographs.
I don't think too many people here know what photo-journalism is and it's certainly not what I see described above. :)
a top post mate. come in, say everyones wrong, then leave. yeah, um nah
Let's not have this thread dissolve into a slanging match aimed at each others abilities, preferences or styles. :)
Does the non intrusive photo-journalistic approach in wedding photography really work?
I've been doing a fair bit of research, and I don't see the top photographer taking that approach and I personally can't get anything useful without getting involved.
Sakhi, from a decidedly NON EXPERT wedding photographer it seems to me that the "top photographers" are producing works that are in demand and surely that demand is what should dictate the style of shoot that a photographer does on the wedding day. A person can have their own style and ways of portraying a wedding and put it out there for the paying public to choose or discard as that which they desire for their wedding or they can offer differing styles ranging from the unobtrusive "photo journalistic" to the full on Hollywood ( or Bollywood ) lavish production. After all, wedding photography is mostly about the money so if a photographer wants dollars they must be prepared to deliver a product that meets or exceeds the punters expectations.
I would hazard a guess that most couples don't give much thought to the sort of wedding photos that impress them until that time comes where they sit down and start choosing the photographer and the style they want for their wedding. That period can probably range from 12 months away to a last minute panic job. By looking at the work available in magazines, the 'net etc they will probably pick one based on their perception of what works and what doesn't.
Photographers on the other hand look at and see other photographers wedding work either to gain an understanding of how they did it or to give them some inspiration and from a photographic point of view it seems to me that there are only so many ways that a wedding can be done before the event turns into something that Stanley Kubrick or Andy Warhol would be proud of and one tends to see may repetitive ( some might say clichéd ) shots of varying technical quality and amongst them the occasional one or two that elicit a WOW response from other photographers.
Some photographers stick to a well proven ( to them ) style and others experiment and become more creative in their approach, we might see examples of weddings from the one photographer that all look similar but we aren't the ones putting food on his table, if the couple liked his work and paid him they probably don't care whether he did some similar shots for another couple they don't know, the shots they have are theirs and unique to them.
If a couple approach you and say that they want a non intrusive style of photos for their wedding day are you going to turn them down and tell them that isn't your "style" ?
If you have a fully booked year ahead of you and don't need any more work then go for it.
If you are only managing to do 2 weddings a year and you are refusing to do things a certain way when asked to by paying clients then perhaps you need to reassess your business practices.
Perhaps the "top photographers" have made it to the top by being able to do a great variety of styles and then have simply become celebrities because of one of those styles so therefore they work only that way?
Yep, it is a business and businesses only survive by offering products that people want.
Redgum
10-07-2011, 10:10am
Care to elaborate Redgum? I am also a journalist and do PJ stuff for publications, like you do.
but we are talking about WEDDING 'photo journalist style' here, not actual PJ work which is totally different even if it shares the same words.
Thanks JM, that's a step closer to the truth and needed to be said.
Zollo, I take exception to your remark which was posted at 1.11AM in the morning. I'm not getting out of bed to answer your question which can easily be done several hours later. And I certainly didn't say everyone is wrong just that the majority don't understand what photo-journalism is. JM has clarified that for you now.
For further clarification simply walk into a newsagent and look at every newspaper and magazine on his shelf. A tiny percentage will be oriented to wedding photography and everything else will be photo-journalism. So I guess if wedding photographers have finally discovered a photo journalistic style that's a real compliment to other photographers that have known about it for hundreds of years. The question is whether wedding photographers can do anything about it? Doesn't sound like it.
redgum wedding photographers haven't "just" discovered it. photographer Chris Lewis in backwards old Perth was winning awards for this style back when I was looking for a photographer for my wedding more than a decade ago. waaay back when film was still the norm.
what i think is that a new generation of brides have "just" discovered it, and its a style they like. personally, i'm not going to take the newlyweds to a war torn country so that i can take "real" photo-journalist photos of them. you can if thats your style.
I think the Photojurnalistic style can be applied at certain times of a wedding. But not throughout the whole thing. At times you need to be a product photographer, then a fashion photographer, etc. And you need to get involved.
The idea that you need to be shooting from the background all the time is impractical!
Sakhi have a look at this link, he's very popular and very few poses if at all http://www.josephmilton.com/
as to whether you like it or not, different pot of stew.
James T
10-07-2011, 12:37pm
Photo-journalist approach
-needs no guidance and communications skills from the photographer towards the bridal party and guests
-lacks formality and the wedding NEEDS TO KNOW YOUR PRESENCE
Whoever said photojournalists (or "wedding photojournalists") can't interact with their subjects?
-obscure, abstract shots without good composition can be passed as PJ style
-lack of creative guidance and approach towards the bridal party and guests
Obscure, over-styled, irrelevant shots with poor composition and horrid processing can be passed off as 'fashion style' or an 'artistic, creative approach'.
-lack of understanding of lighting, heck some ppl will argue they will only use available light only - yeah well if u knew how to use flash and continuous lighting u can combine it!
Heck, if you knew how to use available light, you wouldn't need your LED panels. ;)
-tend to fall back doing the same style of shots repeatedly for different weddings
Very true of the common 'fashion' wedding photographer from what I've seen. Same poses, trying to make people who aren't models, into models. Repeatedly using the same 'cool lighting trick' they learnt / stole off YouTube. Creating the same scene at every wedding, which has nothing to do with the couple, or their day.
...
The part that annoys me most is that the general public has heard this and they see some great images that were made to look candid, and they demand the same.
Maybe they were candid?
There has been a couple instances where I was asked to "just take random shots". This was following the ceremony. There was nothing to take. People were huddled close to each other talking and stuffing their faces. So all I would get were mostly peoples backs, and glimpses of faces with stupid expressions.
Since then I make it perfectly clear to all the couples I meet with that my style is not photo-journalistic.
Exactly, it's not your style. You may not be any good at it, but others are. :th3:
(Some points may have been over-simplified to make a point ;) )
Sakhi have a look at this link, he's very popular and very few poses if at all http://www.josephmilton.com/
as to whether you like it or not, different pot of stew.
Thanks for that :)
There are some brilliant shots in there, but I'm sure you'll agree that there are a fair bit of sub standard shots.
I work from the bases that a wedding is a celebration of the couple's love for each other, and that I need to capture that. That's why I'm not too keen on such approach.
This is my site: www.sakhi.com.au, just to give you an idea of my style, which I'm still refining.
Please note that im in no way saying that I'm better than others. I just think that the style you showed me misses the fundamental point of a wedding.
Let's get back to fundamentals: What is a wedding?
To me, it is the celebration of a couple's love for each other.
What's your definition?
What is a wedding? A religious event that is celebrated by different people in many different ways. Certainly nothing to do with photography. And I guess that the wedding photography market, as often quoted here, has shrunk by nearly 70% in a decade reinforces that significance. In reality it doesn't matter what you call your style, like anything commercial, its success will depend on your appeal to the market. If you can't cope with variety then you have little chance of success.
JM Tran
10-07-2011, 4:11pm
Whoever said photojournalists (or "wedding photojournalists") can't interact with their subjects?
Obscure, over-styled, irrelevant shots with poor composition and horrid processing can be passed off as 'fashion style' or an 'artistic, creative approach'.
Heck, if you knew how to use available light, you wouldn't need your LED panels. ;)
Very true of the common 'fashion' wedding photographer from what I've seen. Same poses, trying to make people who aren't models, into models. Repeatedly using the same 'cool lighting trick' they learnt / stole off YouTube. Creating the same scene at every wedding, which has nothing to do with the couple, or their day.
Maybe they were candid?
Exactly, it's not your style. You may not be any good at it, but others are. :th3:
(Some points may have been over-simplified to make a point ;) )
LOL, are u serious with that LED panel comment?
I use it as it adds to a different sort of light and feel and bring light - to where it wasnt possible before with flash, or natural ambient lighting.
Try doing a couple or group shot at F1.2 somewhere really dark?
Whoever said photojournalists (or "wedding photojournalists") can't interact with their subjects?
I said. Read the previous posts. Work with a lot of people. Realize that a lot of new photographers entering the market thinks that PJ style is all about anonymity and fading into the background. If you interact with your subjects, good for you - you will do better than those that dont.
Spot the ones that are candid/PJ style, to formal shots, to my beloved LED panel usage shots below
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?84372-Recent-Weddings-Caroline-amp-Anthony-Miriam-amp-Leonidas-and-more-%29
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?81280-that-Moment-when-Weddings-cross-into-the-Fashion-genre
Do a lot of weddings and fashion James?
In post #11 I did ask nicely so please be advised ----
personal remarks or attacks on other members WILL result in either temporary or permanent bans
Longshots
10-07-2011, 4:50pm
I cant quite believe anyone is serious when suggesting that the use of the word photo-journalistic was a recent adaptation in the wedding photography business !
When I shot weddings this was my preferred style. If anyone wanted to put a title to what I was doing, that would have been the description used at the time. I personally never use or usedd the phrase/word to market myself. And I started shooting weddings over 30 years ago. (Now I rarely shoot them. ) I suppose the word "recent" or a "few years ago" is as subjective as the understanding of what "photo-journalistic" is ! :th3:
I would rarely offer any instructions during or before the event. A meeting with the clients prior to the event would answer many of my questions, a recce of the venue/s, and a meeting with the minister/etc would give me all the information I would need, to ensure that I wouldnt need to pose any of the event.
85 - 90% of all shots were shot as a record of how the event happens. I would rarely interject or interrupt the flow of the wedding. The other part of the percentage 10-15% was the inevitable family groups. To answer the original quesiton - yes it can be done and its not rocket science, its simply being the "fly on the wall", and capturing those moments in time that tell the story of the event.
I'm well aware of many colleagues who currently shoot in this style, some of them master craftsmen of this genre. It isnt something that people just start doing, its like many things, it takes time to polish. It is difficult and you do need to practice to achieve a top standard.
JM Tran
10-07-2011, 4:56pm
disappointing William, if you had 'coined' the term 'story-book telling' way back then, like Gary Fong did as his way of labeling 'wedding photo-journalism', you would have made squillions by now:D
I cant quite believe anyone is serious when suggesting that the use of the word photo-journalistic was a recent adaptation in the wedding photography business
oh but there are many, many of those new wedding photographers entering the market and using that term even stating it on their websites and bio etc. Ten years ago when I began to show an interest in photography I had never heard that time being used in weddings, not until the last 2-3 years being thrown around.
James T
10-07-2011, 4:57pm
LOL, are u serious with that LED panel comment?
you obviously missed the smilie at the end of that line Jackie. Only half serious maybe. :p Were you serious with your comments? There are far better shooters than any of us, who use solely natural and available light..
Do a lot of weddings and fashion James?
A bit by request, generally do my best to avoid it though. :)
Dylan & Marianne
10-07-2011, 5:05pm
Sakhi, the fundamental point of a wedding really is something that varies for each couple as well ; For my wife and I , we had been living together for years already - the wedding was more or less a way to formalise what we already had and a chance for everyone else to celebrate. For the newly weds after eloping, the emotional investment differs. For newly weds after a tumultuous month together who made a snap decision to marry, the dynamic would surely be different again. For newly weds of an arranged wedding, different again etc. You're right, you'd hope it would be a celebration of a couple's love for each other but love comes in many shapes and definitions and I don't think we should be defining it for the couple involved. Sure, as photographers, we can interpret it the way we see fit for the style of images we take, but it would be dangerous to pigeonhole our client's intentions generically.
My approach to clients for weddings (from very part time wedding photographer experience) is to show them what we've been capable of doing in the past and if that quality or style is what they desire, then all good :)
Whether you call it photo journalistic or not is really a moot point as more often than not, the client will not understand the term as photographers do (and even then there is some disagreement)
We've been told that most of our clients approach us (by the clients themselves) because the images we take look minimally staged if at all but in response to that, we do let them know that many of them actually are manufactured on the day. Some have said things like "we like your photojournalistic style" - that amuses us, but hey, if that's what they think, as long as they know what's involved, we don't care.
Photojournalistic, Glamour, High fashion , Candid - whatever term we use and whatever means we use to achieve it is irrelevant (ie LED light , natural light, repeated attempts at the 1 shot, 100% candid etc). It's what the client understands of those terms and understands of the outcome that really counts (and of course , the final product and how closely it matched initial expectations). Jerry Ghionis keeps winning awards for his photographic style and heck, if he calls it blah-blah-ism and that's what his client thinks of his style - then who cares what the real techinical term is!
JM Tran
10-07-2011, 5:06pm
you obviously missed the smilie at the end of that line Jackie. Only half serious maybe. :p Were you serious with your comments? There are far better shooters than any of us, who use solely natural and available light..
A bit by request, generally do my best to avoid it though. :)
No Im quite serious James, there are many, many situations when and where the wedding photographer simply cannot rely on available light as the sole bread winner, such as situations where there is harsh and uneven lighting and shadows, very dark areas where cranking the ISO still would not suffice, or backlighting against a window and so many miscellaneous factors. Even owning a boat load of F1.2 and 1.4 lenses would not help.
As I said before, the best in the world know where and when to use which type of lighting - I use available light when and where I can too. It also depends on your geographic standing, its almost impossible to use available light for a wedding in Adelaide or most of Australia in summer, but when I was shooting in London I thought - goddamn! The natural lighting here is sooooo good as its always overcast and ideal for that kind of stuff!
To me, using and mastering lighting and flash is not just simply having the big flash on top of the camera, but knowing how to use it for the right purposes, such as leaving a few wireless flashes around a reception or a bed room to create a nice smooth ambient feel. Same goes for what I mentioned about the better wedding photographers compared to the rest of the scrum - they use and apply the 'PJ style' where and when necessary.
Longshots
10-07-2011, 6:33pm
As I said before, the best in the world know where and when to use which type of lighting - I use available light when and where I can too. It also depends on your geographic standing, its almost impossible to use available light for a wedding in Adelaide or most of Australia in summer, but when I was shooting in London I thought - goddamn! The natural lighting here is sooooo good as its always overcast and ideal for that kind of stuff! .
Oh I so had to laugh at this :) Sorry JM, but I had the total reverse feeling when I moved from the UK to here in Queensland 20 years ago.
God it might be light, but its so bright ! And harsh :)
None of that easy to use overcast light which just wraps around everything. I'd say it took me a couple of years to really master the bright light and deep shadows you'll find in Qld. Every time I go to Sydney and Melbourne (and occasionally Adelaide) I just love the soft light those cities have - sooooo much easier to shoot buildings in any of those beautiful cities.
Knowing, understanding, and mastering the use of light is the key to photographic success.
JM Tran
10-07-2011, 6:37pm
mind you that was my first time shooting in Europe, and it was coming at the end of the miserable winter.
but u are very right about Brisbane, I hate shooting there as there is so much light and harsh shadows.
Xebadir
10-07-2011, 7:47pm
I think we are getting to the crux of the issue here with Darren's statement.
We as human's categorise everything. I am not exactly sure why our minds work in that way (perhaps its an evolution of the relatively simple comprehension, we just can't handle the boundless environment?), nor am I entirely sure if it is a good or a bad thing, but generally the world and everything in it doesn't work like that. Its quite clearly evident that there is a spectrum of opinion on whats PJ/whats not, and leaves us with a continuous sample of endless possibility. The fact is as Darren said, it doesn't actually matter what we call it, all that matters is what it is. Jackie's style is what gets him clients, his clients seek him out for the way he goes about it, and to be honest, If I needed my wedding shot and wanted something very unique I'd probably think he was worth every cent. Sure we may not like it, but his clients do or they wouldn't have chosen him. Darren's style is Darren's. Mine is Mine. Realistically, yes your style needs to have something that attracts the client, and this is like all art, it appeals to some, not all. In saying this, the number of over-charging wedding photographers who offer a certain hands off poor quality product drives me to despair, but in the end people will continue to go that way because the diversity is not there in the market and people have little other option that is visible to them. Its a blight on the industry I believe, that these people are associated with a professional group and yet offer substandard products and services for elevated prices, but then again, thats not unusual for Australia. I don't think however that these particular individuals are exclusive to just a PJ style though.
Dylan & Marianne
10-07-2011, 8:30pm
Heya John - not sure if you were referring to me or Kiwi Darren but if it was me - thanks lol (if not then I'll go hide now)
Heya John - not sure if you were referring to me or Kiwi Darren but if it was me - thanks lol (if not then I'll go hide now)
:confused013:confused013:confused013
Xebadir
10-07-2011, 11:38pm
Heya John - not sure if you were referring to me or Kiwi Darren but if it was me - thanks lol (if not then I'll go hide now)
Arg, Sorry Dylan. Got myself confused. Like I would ever give Kiwi a compliment :P. All credit to you. If a mod could correct that then I wouldn't feel so silly.
jasevk
11-07-2011, 11:25pm
Heck, if you knew how to use available light, you wouldn't need your LED panels. ;)
Sorry, this comment is not sitting well with me, I believe JM referred to the use of creative lighting... Sometimes natural light is simply not sufficient, and god forbid a photographer try something creative...
James T
12-07-2011, 10:48am
Sorry, this comment is not sitting well with me, I believe JM referred to the use of creative lighting... Sometimes natural light is simply not sufficient, and god forbid a photographer try something creative...
Sigh.
Did you note any of the rest of my post? The winks, and the last line about over-simplifying?
Also, did you note the quote from Jackie which I was responding to? Sweeping statements don't sit well with me.
God forbid a photographer try to understand light properly hey...
Chilli
12-07-2011, 11:03am
Sakhi have a look at this link, he's very popular and very few poses if at all http://www.josephmilton.com/
as to whether you like it or not, different pot of stew.
Love it, thanks for sharing that link..
God forbid a photographer try to understand light properly hey...
exactly, quite often, as I'm sure you know... This understanding leads to the use of additional lights, reflectors etc etc. As for the winks and smiles, some people here use those to sugar coat passive aggressive comments... Sometimes hard to gauge which is true.
James T
12-07-2011, 2:22pm
exactly, quite often, as I'm sure you know... This understanding leads to the use of additional lights, reflectors etc etc. As for the winks and smiles, some people here use those to sugar coat passive aggressive comments... Sometimes hard to gauge which is true.
It was just a comment to illustrate how ridiculous Jackie's statements were. Suggesting a photographer should use flash / other lighting, is just as ridiculous as suggesting one shouldn't.
JM Tran
12-07-2011, 2:44pm
It was just a comment to illustrate how ridiculous Jackie's statements were. Suggesting a photographer should use flash / other lighting, is just as ridiculous as suggesting one shouldn't.
No offence, but I think you had misinterpreted what I had wrote. No where did I write you HAVE TO use flash/other lighting, can you please quote where I wrote that?
I simply said a good photographer simply knows where and when to employ the best and right amount of lighting, instead of sticking to one medium and be stubborn about it. Is that so ridiculous?
I agree Jackie, I see statements like "I only ever used natural light", seems rather limiting and narrow minded to me
I simply said a good photographer simply knows where and when to employ the best and right amount of lighting, instead of sticking to one medium and be stubborn about it. Is that so ridiculous?
JamesT, that's exactly how I read it, hence my post
James T
12-07-2011, 3:26pm
No offence, but I think you had misinterpreted what I had wrote. No where did I write you HAVE TO use flash/other lighting, can you please quote where I wrote that?
I simply said a good photographer simply knows where and when to employ the best and right amount of lighting, instead of sticking to one medium and be stubborn about it. Is that so ridiculous?
I know you didn't say that Jackie. You did say PJ style was "a big load of crap" though, and then continued with a list of sweeping statements about people who shoot that way. OK, maybe that's true in your experience.
I was simply making counter statements to show how it depends on your view.
I agree Jackie, I see statements like "I only ever used natural light", seems rather limiting and narrow minded to me
Meh, if someone wants to shoot only with natural light, or only with studio flash, or only with a 50mm 1.4, who are you or I to question that?
There has been a lot of points raised, and I thank you all for taking the time to reply.
Personally, I have learned a number of things, and will apply them in my business which I'm hoping to grow further.
One point bugs me, and I would love some thoughts on it:
As I understand it, and this is in the realms of wedding photography, the photo journalistic approach means that you walk in, say hello, step into the background and snap away as people go about their business.
Technically, it should mean that you should know your client and their set up, and from that construct the story of the day through pictures. That's my understanding of what the job of a photo journalist is about. (correct me if I'm wrong)
I find that there is a certain level of haphazardness in the work of those who advertise themselves as using the photo journalistic approach. There are some brilliant shots that are emotionally rich, and I know you couldn't get them by any other means, but in between those, there are many that are just random and meaningless.
So the question is: Doesn't relying on this approach leave a lot to chance?
There are many couples that I have photographed that would've just drunk themselves silly and all I would've had at the end of the day were photos of them passed out. And there are the shy couples who would've just sat there and not even looked at each other. So really, not every wedding can be photographed in this manner.
I personally approach a wedding in many styles. I do the candid shots because there are certain things that I wouldn't be able to get any other way. But at times, I do step in and instruct the client on where and how to stand when I want certain shots, because I don't expect them to walk into the frame when and how I want them. I do use available and natural light (which I love), but I also use creative lighting when I'm working a particular shot (which I also love).
I believe to achieve an exciting and artistic collection of photographs that you can present to your client, you need to approach a wedding with many different styles.
When you visit a website and see that the photographer has taken only the one approach (what ever that is), there seems to be a certain flatness to the work as a collection.
As wedding photographers, we are hired to capture the day in all its essence, and with such a dynamic subject, you can not apply one approach.
I agree Jackie, I see statements like "I only ever used natural light", seems rather limiting and narrow minded to me
I suspect in a lot of cases the comment that "I only ever use natural light" is being used in place of the more honest "I'm not confident with artificial lighting setups yet". That being said, there are certainly photographers (and very good ones) for whom the natural-light only approach is a decision based on experience and aesthetic preference.
As to the PJ issue, I figure clients should choose their wedding photographer because they like the photographer's style and personality, not because of the term the photographer uses to define their style (let's leave finances etc. out of the equation for the moment).
I find that there is a certain level of haphazardness in the work of those who advertise themselves as using the photo journalistic approach. There are some brilliant shots that are emotionally rich, and I know you couldn't get them by any other means, but in between those, there are many that are just random and meaningless.
I think that you have answered your own question with that bit right there. :)
Are all photo journalist wedding photographers crap?
Clearly the answer is no.
Are all wedding photographers that don't shoot in a photo journalistic way truly excellent and remarkable?
Clearly the answer is no.
It is the ability and the vision of the photographer that produces the goods, not one particular style or another and I am sure that if we look hard enough we will find some shining examples of each style well represented in the market place. Some might even appear on AP from time to time. :rolleyes:
James T
12-07-2011, 3:56pm
.. in the realms of wedding photography, the photo journalistic approach means ...
Whatever you want it to mean I think. It's solely a marketing term, if you think your clients will interpret it the same way you do, and as a positive point, then that's what matters.
I find that there is a certain level of haphazardness in the work of those who advertise themselves as using the photo journalistic approach. There are some brilliant shots that are emotionally rich, and I know you couldn't get them by any other means, but in between those, there are many that are just random and meaningless.
So the question is: Doesn't relying on this approach leave a lot to chance?
That'll be the poor photographers, and/or your interpretation of the work. They're especially hard to view as an outsider, because it's wedding photography, and unless you're the one getting married - the photographer doesn't care what you think of the photos. Just like photos of other people's kids bore me to tears.
So really, not every wedding can be photographed in this manner.
They can, you'll just end up with different shots at the end of it. If everyone is hammered, I'm not sure how posing them makes much of a difference.
I personally approach a wedding in many styles. I do the candid shots because there are certain things that I wouldn't be able to get any other way. But at times, I do step in and instruct the client on where and how to stand when I want certain shots, because I don't expect them to walk into the frame when and how I want them. I do use available and natural light (which I love), but I also use creative lighting when I'm working a particular shot (which I also love).
I believe to achieve an exciting and artistic collection of photographs that you can present to your client, you need to approach a wedding with many different styles.
When you visit a website and see that the photographer has taken only the one approach (what ever that is), there seems to be a certain flatness to the work as a collection.
As wedding photographers, we are hired to capture the day in all its essence, and with such a dynamic subject, you can not apply one approach.
As said by someone earlier in the thread, [EDIT: it was Redgum] a wedding isn't for you. There used to be a time when it was about two people getting married, and maybe they would hire someone to record that day for them in photographs. Now it's often (and this isn't directed at you personally) an excuse for a party and for a fashion photographer to come in and shoot for his/her folio. :party6:
Oh, and of course you can cover a wedding with one approach, there are far more dynamic and complex events were photographers do a great job of doing just that. Whether you want to or not is of course entirely up to you, or whoever is shooting the wedding. And you would hope the couple had chosen their photographer based on his/her previous work - therefore everyone ends up happy. :)
EDIT: or I could just have said what Andrew said. :)
Just a bit more about myself (which will put some of the points I made into perspective):
I am fanatical about what I do (but at the same time I am objective and try not to get lost in my own ways :D). Wedding photography is not just a business for me, it is something that I enjoy immensely, it is my life. I don't enjoy photographing anything else.
I can even say that I approach it philosophically! (Considering that I have done some studies in that :))
I started this discussion to test my points of view, and I must admit they have been tested :)
I want to deliver the best product to my clients and I must admit, you guys have been a great help in refining my disposition :)
I know you didn't say that Jackie. You did say PJ style was "a big load of crap" though, and then continued with a list of sweeping statements about people who shoot that way. OK, maybe that's true in your experience.
I was simply making counter statements to show how it depends on your view.
Meh, if someone wants to shoot only with natural light, or only with studio flash, or only with a 50mm 1.4, who are you or I to question that?
Because it's a statement of fact. Do these photographers turn down all shots at night ? That's limiting and narrow minded
Can you shoot a wedding using just natural light - if course, also a statement of fact, every wedding ? No. Statement of fact.
I'm not questioning it, I'm just declaring it as it is.
James T
12-07-2011, 6:08pm
Because it's a statement of fact. Do these photographers turn down all shots at night ? That's limiting and narrow minded
Can you shoot a wedding using just natural light - if course, also a statement of fact, every wedding ? No. Statement of fact.
I'm not questioning it, I'm just declaring it as it is.
At the risk of boring myself, and no doubt many others.. :D
It is not a statement of fact.
Why would they have to turn down shoots at night? Have you never taken a shot at night without introducing your own lights?
OK, if it's strictly natural light (I think unfortunately a lot of people on the internets mean available, or ambient light, when they say natural) it may make it tougher.
Even then, I'm sure I'm not the only person who's taken portraits by natural light in the middle of the night.
If a photographer didn't take on shoots at night for whatever reason, I would hardly call them narrow minded because of it. Do you shoot every subject in the world? No, are you narrow minded?
Can you shoot every wedding only by available light, of course. Statement of fact. ;)
I would say it's far more narrow minded to not see other ways of shooting.
Well, I'll stick with my opinion, but I respect yours is different
Just in reply to points made by Redgum and James T.
What is a wedding? A religious event that is celebrated by different people in many different ways. Certainly nothing to do with photography...
Firstly a wedding ceremony is not only a religious event, it is a cultural event and a legal contract. Does this have anything to do with photography. The wedding is the subject of the photographs you are hired to produce, how could the definition of it be irrelevant?
From your photos I am guessing that you are both photo journalists, so I'm asking you how could the background of the subjects you are assigned to shoot be irrelevant?
...They're especially hard to view as an outsider, because it's wedding photography, and unless you're the one getting married - the photographer doesn't care what you think of the photos...
You're the photo journalist; don't you see a problem with this statement?
You try to capture the essence of a subject so who ever is looking at your photos is not only being informed, but is also moved, whether they were related to the subject or not.
James, you made the point of not being able to photograph a drunk couple. Well, you actually stop them before they get to that point. Not directly, but through getting them busy with other stuff so they don't drink.
I just can't see one of those photographers who become the fly on the wall dealing with any of the problems that I have to deal with every now and then.
You might say that it shouldn't be the job of the photographer to deal with these things. Well, what do you go through to get the shot?
I'm sure that in your field of work there are people who are getting away with supplying substandard work, but passing it off as some new trend.
I hold great respect for photo journalists, but the feeling I am getting is that you two (photo journalists) don't have much respect for wedding photographers.
Our work is not a walk in the park. To cover a wedding properly, we are on the go, non stop, for hours on end. We have to be creative under pressure (so we are not doing the same shots every time), and we deal with lots of ....... on the day.
James T
12-07-2011, 9:12pm
I hold great respect for photo journalists, but the feeling I am getting is that you two (photo journalists) don't have much respect for wedding photographers.
I have every respect for wedding photographers, just as much as any other group of people anyway. :)
For the record, photojournalism forms a very small part of my photography. I shoot a lot of different stuff (including the very, very occasional wedding) and I would estimate on more jobs than not I will use flash at some point.
@Kiwi, that's cool. :)
This thread is showing that some photographers egos need to be treated. I hope an ego as large as some of the ones on show are not prerequisite to being a photographer.
Go back and read some of your posts, I think some humility would be a good acquisition for some of you.
This thread is showing that some photographers egos need to be treated. I hope an ego as large as some of the ones on show are not prerequisite to being a photographer.
Go back and read some of your posts, I think some humility would be a good acquisition for some of you.
Very well said, was wondering how I might articulate this... Thanks for doing it for me :)
James T
12-07-2011, 10:11pm
This thread is showing that some photographers egos need to be treated. I hope an ego as large as some of the ones on show are not prerequisite to being a photographer.
Go back and read some of your posts, I think some humility would be a good acquisition for some of you.
I don't see any big egos being thrown around. Just people discussing styles and methods of photography.. not even their own necessarily - hard to have a big ego about a style you don't shoot in. :confused013
winterstorm
16-07-2011, 11:59am
Interesting topic and even more interesting answers. I do a bit of both. I cant help but want to stop, pose and interact with people. It feels unnatural to me not to. I have recently been doing some theatre and theres no interacting with the subjects there at all, I have to keep saying to myself "keep your mouth shut!!! Dont say anything!!!" so I find that harder than asking them to move their head a bit here and there.
For weddings, we always go with a pair of photographers, one generally will prefer to do the candid style and one, more formal. Its worked so far.
Sobriquet
25-07-2011, 9:21am
Although it appears Longshot was indeed taking a photojournalistic approach to wedding photography way back then, I have to say many photographers 20 years ago were not. It was very posed even at a couple of times during the ceremony, priests & celebrants still expect me to want to pose the signing images! I love more natural looking images and appreciate the contribution the labelling 'photojournalism' has made toward loosening up the expectations of what wedding photos should look like. The story telling albums are great and being able to take many more images means you can move away from a structured shot list to look for more artistic images.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.