A Bride and Groom who demand a 100% photojournalistic approach

William's advice is spot on. So is getting at least 50% of the fee unconditional and in advance. Keep the MOB out of the loop. At my own wedding my own mother ultimately refused to come because she didn't like the colour of the cake. I had to call the bluff and pay for everything myself to take away her leverage. It was a nightmare that soured the whole event.

Shoot the wedding the way you like which brings out your professional skills. If you take better posed shots than running around like a pap, then just say no thanks.

<p>There's a big difference between a couple asking that everything be candids and they don't want any posed shots as opposed to a couple who are photography-savvy asking for 100% photo-journalistic coverage.</p>

<p>The key is still about managing expectations of the B/G and have them be clear on what they want and expect.</p>

<p>I agree, get paid up front and then shoot as per the contract.</p>

<p><em>Is this normal? I have always had a 30 minutes minimum of formal photograhic time. The rest was full on photojournalistic.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

It doesn't matter if its normal. Its essentially the same type of shoot you already do except the formals.</p>

<p><em>How should I approach this wedding?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

The same way as all your other weddings except there are no formals.</p>

<p><em>My nervousness comes from parents who are paying for the wedding not getting the style that they like or wondering where the formal photographs are in the album. My bride insists that everyone is on board with their vision.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Do the parents have a phone number? How hard is it to call them to verify the brides assurances?</p>

<p>You are making this more complicated than it is. Its not complicated at all. Make sure the contract is reflects the shoot plan accurately and do what you normally do except the formals.<br>

<br /></p>

<p>One little suggestion, I read above that the couple may not know what they are asking for. This may be true, 'candid' shots are great, but I would suggest you take the time to find out what photos they have in their heads. Maybe ask questions like what do you see when you think of your wedding day? What is that one photo you will want? This will help to give you some direction. I never shoot a wedding without asking these types of questions. Good luck!</p>

<p>This is my dream wedding!</p>

<p>aah, my dream couple...wish they were all like that.</p>

<p>It's a simple answer...the bride & groom is the client and it's their wedding. I don't do weddings, but loosen up and go with the flow.</p>

<p>I am a little surprised at those who say this would be their dream wedding to shoot. Such a statement says a lot about the photographer. One could conclude that those shooters dislike shooting formals and creatively posed shots and would rather just not be involved in directing and working with people. But doing so is at the heart of wedding photography, as much as capturing PJ and candids ever will be. You really have to be a people person to do this job, and part of the job is in eliciting beautiful photos from ordinary folks.</p>

<p>My take is that if you really dread posing and working with people to do formals (or if you don't feel you're good at it), perhaps you're in the wrong line of work. I'm not being judgemental of anyone here, but just saying each of us needs to evaluate this within ourselves so we know we're on the right path. For me, the greatest challenge and most fun isn't doing the candids and PJ shots; those are easy and certainly fun. But it's getting beautifully lit and naturally posed portraits and group shots that are a huge and important part of what we do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My take is that if you really dread posing and working with people to do formals (or if you don't feel you're good at it), perhaps you're in the wrong line of work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, I'm sure I could just as easily argue the exact reverse.</p>

<p>Most documentary photographers would tell you that people skills are the most essential skill in their repertoire, and the single thing that makes them successful as story tellers. It takes a special insight to photograph people in an interesting way without their active involvement, and to read people's interactions to anticipate moments before they happen. And even more people skills to gently fit into emotionally significant situations in a non-invasive way.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One could conclude that those shooters dislike shooting formals and creatively posed shots and would rather just not be involved in directing and working with people</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be one conclusion. Another might be that people are interested in a bigger challenge and more opportunity to test their skills. If you don't shoot formals, then the only good pictures will be the ones you spot. It doesn't get harder - or more rewarding.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... it's getting beautifully lit and naturally posed portraits and group shots that are a huge and important part of what we do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that depends on your perspective. It doesn't interest everyone. For instance, I have no personal interest in artificially posing people, telling them the expressions to wear on their faces, and bringing my own light rather than making the most of what's available. To me that's nothing more than photography by numbers - just a small variation on shooting still life, albeit to a bigger scale. :-)</p>

<p>Of course, I'd never actually argue that because there's no basis for assuming one approach is better than the other. It's a varied market, with varied client needs, and varied styles to fill them, and I have plenty of respect for people who work differently from myself. Especially for those who specialise in formals or creative portraiture.</p>

<p>My take? Let's just be happy we're all different. At least it means we're not all chasing the same clients :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Who's the photographer? You or the B&G? If they don't want what you do, point them to another photographer. Isn't there enough biz to go around?</p>

<p>Neil, thanks for giving the opposite perspective on this. My responses would be:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Most documentary photographers would tell you that people skills are the most essential skill in their repertoire, and the single thing that makes them successful as story tellers. It takes a special insight to photograph people in an interesting way without their active involvement, and to read people's interactions to anticipate moments before they happen. And even more people skills to gently fit into emotionally significant situations in a non-invasive way."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very true. However, you are speaking of a very different skill set than the one needed for doing great formals and creative portraiture. One involves being quiet, anticipating the action and shots, and being unobtrusive; the other requires direct communication skills, and eye for bringing harmony and art to the setting and subjects, and the ability to work with artificial lighting when the existing lighting simply does not lend itself to great results (and this is often the case).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If you don't shoot formals, then the only good pictures will be the ones you spot."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True again. But this is more of a "let's see what life throws us" approach. We still have to be good at influencing reality at times too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I have no personal interest in artificially posing people, telling them the expressions to wear on their faces, and bringing my own light rather than making the most of what's available. To me that's nothing more than photography by numbers - just a small variation on shooting still life, albeit to a bigger scale."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither does Joe Buissink. However, he does employ a formals shooter who DOES specialize in doing just that, so he is free to do his thing. I think this is a good approach. In any client family group, there will be those who will appreciate and even demand both styles of photos. As for me, I do both styles and work hard to excel at all of it, because I find it rewarding.</p>

<p>A small, tinkling, alarm bell went off when I read your post. I had a large wedding where the mother of the bride paid for everything and the groom's mother ran the photo show. I would just make sure the expectations of those that are paying for the photography are the same as the B&G. I won't go into my problems except to say it took a while and a little financial sacrifice on my part to make everyone happy. I learned something.</p>

<p>I also think there is a HUGE difference between shooting still life and shooting people. Still life doesn't blink, look off to one side, act silly or engage in side conversation, doesn't get tired, doesn't sweat, and doesn't respond to verbal interaction. People do.</p>

<p>Hey, Steve - ever tried shooting food? It does almost all those things, apart from the blinking and conversation :-)</p>

<p><em>In any client family group, there will be those who will appreciate and even demand both styles of photos.</em></p>

<p>Perhaps this is true, but since they're not hiring the photographer, these family members should work with the bride and groom to discuss their wishes and see if they can be fit into the idea of the wedding that the bride and groom want. Perhaps this bride and groom just dislike being the subject of posed photography and want their wedding day to be a nice experience. I don't see how it is the photographer's task to persuade the client to buy something which they have said they don't want. If I were the client I would find it very annoying and I'd quickly try to find another photographer who is more service minded.</p>

<p>Much would depend upon the venues. It's rare that I have been able to go 100% available light. My last solo wedding was a beautiful, huge old Catholic church with tons of glass and architecture. Problem was that it was on a Friday night in December. We were lierally we were in the dark<br>

They didn't want formals so I nixed some lighting gear... bad move. Mother took over and it was appalling. It was my worst wedding since my early efforts. Thankfully it was my last.<br>

Positives... everyone will have a P+S so that might give you more freedom</p>

<p>this is going to be a nice and easy shoot for you. take a few shots, mingle, eat and shoot some more. as long as you have plenty of pictures of every guest everything should be fine.</p>

<p>Neil, I did shoot a groomsman who looked like a cauliflower once...and I've shot a few "hot tomatoes"! ;-)</p>

<p>Ilkka, I don't think I ever said it was our task to persuade them to buy something they don't want. All I said was to be sure the client lets friends and family know what they're asking you to do and how you're being asked to shoot.</p>

<p>"My nervousness comes from parents who are paying for the wedding not getting the style that they like or wondering where the formal photographs are in the album. "<br>

"Probably the first thing I make sure everyone understands is that No Matter who is paying the for the wedding: <strong>I am working for the bride and groom Only.</strong> I take direction from the bride and groom only."</p>

<p>Whatever happened to:<br>

"He who pays the piper calls the tune"<br>

I'm not a photographer, but my first repsonsibility is always to the person who is paying the bill. If as already suggested, the parents wont give the B&G the money to arrange the photographer as they want to, then consider yourself warned!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>From a "legal" standpoint, the responsibility to complete the contract is with the people or businesses signing the contract. So even if "Mom" is actually paying for it, if things go in the dumpster and you have to go to court, you sue the parties to the contract. The unpaid vendor is unlikely to be accepting of the "Well, I signed the contract but I was supposed to get the money from Mom and she hates the florist so she didn't pay me and I didn't pay the photographer." Nor if you "try" to sue "Mom," will it get through court because the judge will look at the contract and ask why you are trying to sue someone who isn't named or obligated by contract? Bang. Dismissed.</p>

<p>The reality is that there are family dynamics going on and even if the couple seems positive that all they want are "informals," there's no good reason not to be ready for at least some changes of plans or cicumstances. "Formals" would seem to be part of the expected repertoire for a wedding photographer so being able to make a good effort at accomodating the request would seem reasonable. You may not be able to squeeze 30 minutes of formals into a day already running behind schedule but I'd be surprised if a photographer told a client, "It's not in the contract." if asked to shoot "A quick group of me and my family." and they are all standing right there.</p>

<p><em>I'd be surprised if a photographer told a client, "It's not in the contract." if asked to shoot "A quick group of me and my family." and they are all standing right there.</em></p>

<p>But the client here has said that "they don't want to be pulled away to have their photos taken." This means that if they want a group shot, the initiative comes from them, not the photographer. You then take the shot once they're organized themselves in formation and that's it. Doesn't even depart from the requested style since you're not directing them.</p>

<p>Find out from the Bride and Groom how they would like you to reply to someone who asks for a posed photo whether the bride and groom are in the photo or not. They may not want you doing that during their wedding and they're your clients. If someone requests a posed photo at the wedding, you should be able to very easliy say that the bride and groom have instructed me not to take any posed photos. If you'd like to check with them, that's fine.<br>

This way you're following instructions and not the bad guy....-Aimee</p>

<p>Aimee, good advice... That's one of my biggest peeves - when someone other than b&g tap you on your shoulder and ask you to take a posed picture of them. Especially once they've had a few drinks :) Certainly most wedding photographers today do employ a photojournalistic style, but it's often hard to avoid stiff family formals.<br>

I give my clients a selection of my 'signature' images as well as others globally adjusted in high res - and I don't want to spend the time to process so many formals... Even the b&g are often unaware of how tedious formals with family members can get... Any other thoughts on how to deal with this? Thanks!</p>

<p>I've never considered being asked to take a shot by guests to be a problem or a peeve. After all, as long as it's okay with the client, it's a shot that I may be able to sell later when the photos are hosted online. Better that they have access to a properly lit photo than an awful point and shoot shot by guest cameras. Plus, it serves to show the difference between what a pro can do vs. cheap p/s cameras.</p>