does off-camera flash disqualify me as PJ wedding shooter?

<p>Okay,<br>

So I envisioned this image while the couple was getting into the car to take them to the reception. I stuck a light on a stick and positioned it where I wanted, in this case, off-camera, near the left front part of the vehicle.<br>

I was pleased with the result, but does it disqualify the image, and me, for that matter, from practicing "wedding photojournalism."<br>

I don't mean to start a fight. I'm just asking.</p>

 

<p>No, it does not disqualify you. Read the following recent and excellent article by Neil Ambrose. He uses an off camera flash sometimes, but very discreetly.</p>

<p>I would question the 'posing' of the couple. Usually, in this kind of situation, you need to place the lightstick 'just so', meaning you have to control the couple to some extent.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo</a></p>

<p>Thanks, Nadine, for your thoughts.<br>

I didn't pose the couple at all. They kissed as they got in the car, and I snagged a couple of shots, quickly.<br>

...BUT...it was night out. There was no ambient light, not coming from the front of the church, or on the street. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. All the light came from my one-light setup. Could I call the light "very discreet? Not a chance. I shot with an SB-800, warmed with a gel, through a 2 x 2 foot softbox. I had those tools pre-set with me for much of the post-ceremony moments. I just took it outside and positioned it a few seconds before the couple came outside too. Since I saw the shot in my mind's eye beforehand, I did take moment to take a test exposure and I *did* scale-back my light a stop or so. Would that pre-planning disqualify me?<br>

If so, let me know. (I won't change the way I shoot. No way. The image is too strong not to shoot that way)...<br>

But no, the couple wasn't posed, if that's the real deal-breaker.</p>

<p>Yes, I think it disqualifies you. Expect your expulsion letter soon. I'm not sure who will be expelling you or from what, but I'm sure it's coming.</p>

<p>Not that it really matters, but was the picture any good?</p>

<p>Doesn't sound like the posing disqualifies you either--but hopefully Neil himself will weigh in. I am not completely PJ, so I would actually be thrilled with being able to use my off camera light that way.</p>

<p>William's post does beg the question, "Why are you concerned about being 'disqualified'"? Are you trying to get in the WPJA?</p>

<p>Thanks, William...I'll wait for the midnight knock on the door.<br>

I don't really know how I would characterize my style of shooting. Mostly it's with ambient light, but often, I'll set a remote, or a set of remotes tuned to different channels – ALWAYS off camera– and as the event progresses, I'll use, or not use, the lights available to me. <br>

The picture? Yeah, it was good. I was a hired second shooter. If/when the couple grants me permission to show it in my portfolio, I can then do just that. But not before.<br>

It's striking. It made me and a couple of people at the reception gasp as I was uploading it. It's really cool.</p>

<p>Acutally, Nadine, yes, I was thinking of trying for a WPJA membership. If it helps with new bookings. I don't know if that would or wouldn't, but hey – ...<br>

The image is so striking that anyone looking would suspect that I posed the couple, including any jury from the WPJA...or so I'm guessing. It's NOT a subtle image. I really really want to show it off, but I ....just ... can't...and it's killing me.</p>

<p>From what I understand of WPJA rules, your portfolio (on your website) is considered as a whole, so one single image would not be of concern. If it is that striking, I'd use it.</p>

<p>If you told them to stop and pose it isn't PJ. You can do all the lighting you want to. Although on camera flash is discouraged. Read stories about how national geo gets some of their photos. </p>

I have to ask a question regarding PJ. What is wrong with capturing a beautiful photo regardless if it's set up or PJ style? My point is if the couple likes the results of many styles, I think we did the job correctly. I mix it up myself.

 

Now I have to ask another 2 questions. Belonging to WPJA, do they give you a lot of referrals? I really don't know the answer to this. If so, can you set up a website to show both traditional and PJ or will WPJA reject you for offering several different styles?

 

I shoot with different styles in mind at pretty much at every wedding, because I find people enjoying the beautiful posed portraits of the bride and groom as well as photos of the families getting together perhaps for the first time in many years. Needless to say I'm also looking for emotional moments, candids, things of that nature; PJ images.

 

I fully respect photographers strictly doing one style, but for some reason I feel like I'm cheating the clients by not giving them several styles. Once in awhile we get to shoot PJ only at a wedding and I really enjoy it. Sometimes the couples hire 2 photographers, usually Craig, my partner and myself, one to do the formals, posed shots, and the other to shoot away, creating a really nice eclectic variety of images.

 

Any comments? This is a subject that always interested me.

<p>PJ is about stories. If they're happening in dark places sometimes you need to bring more light. I'd say that's just good anticipation. But the trick is in using the light in a non-invasive way.</p>

<p>James, I occasionally work the same way you've described. At the last wedding I shot there was a reception in a restaurant where the ambient light was very low - so low in fact, that my handheld meter couldn't register it. I put four speedlights in the corners of the room, each on a different lighting group. I then worked in my normal way (entirely PJ, no posing or coaching) but just switched my transmitter so I could fire the light or group that I wanted. To all intents and purposes I was working without flash - no light coming from my camera, and no 'in the face' blast of light to distract people. But all my shots had nice backlighting or cross lighting. None of them front lit, so the people being photographed remained undisturbed.</p>

<p>I'd love to see your picture if you get permission to post it. Sounds like it could be something very good.</p>

<p>Hardly.</p>

<p>I do that sort of thing all the time. It just means you are anticipating great shots, WITH great lighting.</p>

<p>I don't think your lighting choice makes a difference, it's whether or not you are directing the subjects or not (sounds like you weren't in this case). </p>

<p>I'm in the wpja, and I know there are plenty of members that do off camera lighting as well, I think we had a contest category one time specifically for it as a matter of fact. Moving a flash off the hotshoe is just another technique, just like bouncing, I think it's all fair game.</p>

<p>As far as wpja helping bookings, I think it depends on the competition in your area and the quality of your work. The wpja definitely drives a lot of traffic and, speaking personally, has led to a lot of business over the years. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wouldn't think off camera lighting necessarily means you're not shooting in a PJ style... I see exactly what you're getting at, but to challenge the line of thinking, what about shooting under a videographer's hot lights, using fill or bounce flash, or working a flash bracket for verticals?<br>

Using a strobe, using a softbox, pole-mounting... Strobist' blogger is a newspaper PJ, and he practically gave a face to the entire trend and use of off camera strobes while working for, and integrating flash with submissions for, the Baltimore Sun.<br>

<br /> I'm a fan of Bambi Cantrell's style - most of it, but especially her older film stuff - and she clearly uses off camera strobes. I don't think anyone would argue that she's not an effective and <em>good </em> wedding photojournalist.</p>

<p><strong>Didn't read others:</strong><br>

Using an off-camera flash means you actually have a clue what lighting is and what it can to improve your images. Thus utilizing it is ONLY to your advantage. There are folks out there, who purchase high end bodies, glasses and at times flashguns, have <strong>no clue</strong> how to use either correctly, shoot at Aperture mode at 2.8 or 1.8 and call them selves photojournalist. Oh, did I mention, they have <em><strong>NO CLUE</strong> </em> what PJ is and how to do it right?<br>

Point being is that photography = drawing with light. <strong>Good for you for using lights and utilizing them correctly</strong> :)</p>

<p>Adam</p>

<p><strong>photojournalism |ˌfōtōˈjərnəˌlizəm|</strong> <br /> noun<br>

<em>"the art or practice of communicating news by photographs, esp. in magazines.</em> "</p>

<p>I believe that as long as you're not directing the flow of events - merely recording them, then your journalism credentials remain intact.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5606921">Cool Dude</a> , Nov 23, 2009; 08:33 a.m.<br>

<strong>photojournalism |ˌfōtōˈjərnəˌlizəm|</strong> <br /> noun<br /> <em>"the art or practice of communicating news by photographs, esp. in magazines.</em> "<br>

I believe that as long as you'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DITTO</p>

<p>I see PJs with flash brackets all the time. Isn't the idea of a flash bracket to get the flash off camera? I don't see how putting the flash on a stick is much different.</p>

<p>Owning or using particular equipment can neither qualify you, nor disqualify you as a photographer, photojournalist, etc. It's not the gear that matters. The bit I have difficulty with is the whole idea of "wedding photo<em>journalism</em> " - it sounds rather <em>paparazzi</em> -ish.</p>

<p>Contrary to some opinion, photojournalism does not limit in any way the tools available to photographers. PJ is an often misused term for "candid only - no flash" photography. If you look into the history of newspaper and magazine photographers you will find that almost all used flash - don't forget film was very slow in the old days.<br>

Photo opportunities for news photographers were and still are not limited to action only pictures. Celebrities, politicians, and other dignitaries were often photographed posing for a handshake, an appearance, a document or book signing, etc. as part of a news story or editorial piece. Somehow the original idea of "telling a story with pictures" has morphed into a set of regulatory or confined activities about <strong>how</strong> to shoot to tell a story.<br>

Weddings are a combination of many "types" of photography. Like it or not, you typically have to know portraiture, still life, architecture, food and product, and oh yes, documentary style photography. Every wedding presents the opportunity to play in a variety of photographic areas depending on the event.<br>

Wait a minute - I don't shoot doves being released into the direct sun - that's wildlife photography! I'm PJ only. Yikes! I had to do butterflies. Believe me it wasn't as easy as it sounded. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Since you used off-camera flash you can't hang out with the photojournalists.</p>

<p>Since you didn't pose the couple you can't hang out with the classic style photographers, either.</p>

<p>However, if you take good pictures, you can eat at my table. However, you will have to give me your snack...</p>

<p>As long as your customers understand what you are doing I don't think it matters. They are hardly likely to know what an official definition of PJ is and it is doubtful any 2 photographers would agree anyway.</p>

<p>Well, for those of you who would care to see the photo in question, here it is. (The couple loves it and granted me permission to use it in my portfolio, for which I'm thankful).</p><div></div>

<p>Very nice, James.</p>