How to get candid & photojournalistic shots...not "snapshots"?

<p>Marc Williams, with the help of the infamous and banned from this forum, Al Kaplan, photographed my wedding almost 5 years ago. He was a total pro, and was and hopefully still is, a great guy. Even though Marc is in Michigan and we were married in south Florida, it was not an issue for Marc. </p>

<p>The first photo of this wedding is a staged 'photojournalistic style' shot. The rest are pure photojournalism.<br>

<a href="http://lelandwong.xanga.com/657607591/photographing-a-wedding-and-then-an-earthquake/">http://lelandwong.xanga.com/657607591/photographing-a-wedding-and-then-an-earthquake/</a></p>

<p>Now THAT'S what I call "Trashing The Dress!"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The result is a picture that is outstanding, and the bride will adore!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is if the bride likes corners sticking out of her head.</p>

<p>I really don't see a difference between photo journalism and candid wedding photography. Other than one is published in a newspaper and the other is published in an album.<br>

To me both styles need a photographer that is capable of looking for the story in a photo and being able to express that story in such a way that just by looking at the photo you understand the moment.<br>

The samples posted here after the OP's question are what I'd consider great examples of either photo journalism/candid photography.<br>

Both 'types' of photography have their 'snapshots' too, and both types can have the subject posed/guided to create that story.</p>

<p>Checkout the WPJA.</p>

<p>Checkout agWPJA too.</p>

<p>when I think snapshot, I think of a person who knows nothing about composition or the aspects that make a good photograph period, but your opinion may differ entirely.</p>

<p>if you are a photographer you should have an idea of what pj is. you make it sound so easy-i wish it is that easy. if it is that easy then everybody can be pj right and just snap snap snap... check out denis reggie. pj is not just about taking snapshots it is capturing the perfect moment that makes the picture standout. the photo doesn't necessarily be black and white but the bw makes the photo even more dramatic...</p>

<p><em><strong>"It seems like most PJ photographers just take a snapshot, turn it black and white and call it PJ."</strong></em><br>

Ouch, glad you said it not me,,,sadly you almost got it right. Really, it is capturing that perfect expression, that perfect angle of dad looking at the bride, all at the perfect time, at the perfect angle. It usually takes taking the same shot 10-20+ times in a row to get that perfect one. It looks like the perfect "snapshot" . Now days the latest "breed" of wedding photographers shoot 3-5000 images per wedding. You are bound to have a few good ones if you shoot that many. I am a little old school, do like PJ, but still pose, make sure everything is perfect before shooting <em><strong>some</strong> </em>shots . Nothing like thinking you see that perfect shot, afterwards the bride's hair or veil is stuck in her mouth, flower looks like it is sticking in her nose, some dumb cousin is holding a peace sign behind someone's head. I guess after shooting zillions of shots on film, it is hard not to be a little old school, do like my digital, does not comapre to my Hasselblad,,,</p>

<p>As someone else mentioned, I often use a longer lens to capture those 'moments', which are regarded as being more photojournalistic, but I think the term refers to an overall style as opposed to single photographs. I've been shooting weddings for 7 years and I say that I am "a photojournalistic photographer, without forsaking the important posed shots". In my opinion, straight photojournalism is cool but in the long run the importance of the posed shots will become apparent - though even the posed ones don't have to be so premeditated. While I'm doing some of the usual 'posed' shots, I'm always on the lookout for candid moments - which usually happen the moment i've taken the posed shot. What I like about the overall PJ style is that it tells the story of the day, with one picture informing both the previous shot as well and the next shot - it's more real than straight 'traditional' pix.</p><div></div>

Inherent in the term 'snapshot' is an implication of thoughtless, trigger-happy (shutter-happy?) snapping with little or no regard to the story. That is what is likely to raise the hackles of those who use the PJ style. There is a world of difference between a posed shot and a captured moment, or indeed a snapshot and a carefully captured candid.

<p>To use a loose analogy, a formally posed shot is like leading a horse to the water and showing it how to drink. The WPJ shot is observing the horse, anticipating that it will get thirsty and positioning oneself to capture it's drinking. Both require different skill-sets. Both often follow the rules and principles of composition, but the outcome is very different. WPJ is not for everyone and unfortunately those who try the style and fail make it look like a collection of careless snapshots, whereas true WPJ is a mastery of technique and equipment coupled with an eye for on-the-fly composition and perfect timing...

<p>Bard said it best :::::<strong> "In my opinion, straight photojournalism is cool but in the long run the importance of the posed shots will become apparent"</strong></p>

<p>A couple of days ago I wrote a short piece describing just how my mind was working, what I was seeing, what I was thinking and how I attempted to capture something more than snapshots during one minute.<br>

It's here;<br>

georgeweir.typepad.com/george_weir_photographer/2010/05/in-a-minute.html</p>

<p>best<br>

George</p>