Jeff Ascough Interview July 2009

<p><strong>Jeff Ascough has been a professional wedding photographer in the United Kingdom since 1989. He has covered over 1000 weddings with a documentary photography style. Ascough emphasizes capturing the moment without any prompting or interference and using available light. <cite>American Photo</cite> voted Ascough as one of the ten best wedding photographers in the world. </strong><br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>He is also a Canon Ambassador and uses the Canon 5D Mark II’s due to the low light capabilities. Frank Van Riper in America’s Washington <a id="AdBriteInlineAd_Post" name="AdBriteInlineAd_Post" target="_top">Post</a> described Jeff as “A master at shooting by available light” and went on to describe his images as “…among the best I ever have seen – an absolute pleasure to see." </strong></p>

<p><strong>This week - until Friday, Jeff will answer your questions. </strong></p>

<p><strong>To familiarize yourself with Jeff and his work, you may want to read this first: </strong><br>

http://www.photo.net/photographer-interviews/jeff-ascough/</p>

<p>We'd like 4 comments and then wait for Jeff to answer. So - if you see four - just hang in there and be ready to post later. We don't want too many questions at once.. The format is just like the one in the thread above. Feel free to go ahead and ask questions that were asked in the former thread as Jeff has changed a few things about the way he works...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jeff, recently on the board we had a discussion about staging events or orchestrating events to either save time, make for a better picture, or for our own aesthetic reasons. How do you feel about staging events (such as telling the bride and groom to kiss at the end of the aisle as the recessional, which was a given example) at weddings?</p>

<p>Related to the question above...do you think because you are NOT staging or orchestrating, then interesting things tend to happen during the time taken for traditional posed photos? Following the same idea, do you think because you not busy staging or orchestrating your mind is freed up to be more watchful and aware of what is going around you? To anticipate the shot (to be clear)?</p>

<p>Thank you for your time to do this. I learned so much reading the previous interview.</p>

<p>I absolutely enjoy your beautiful work! My question is about workflow. I've read on your blog and in various articles you have mentioned using adobe lightroom, apple aperture and phase one capture. Which processing and raw conversion software do you prefer now and why? <br>

Also would you summarize your work flow and do you batch process using your actions in photoshop at the end or do you individually use actions on each image?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>hey Jeff, big fan. :o)<br>

<br /> just wondered about what metering setting you typically use on your 5DmkII's, and whether you tend to purposefully overexpose a little [and recover highlights in post], or if you try to get the exposure pretty much bang on, or if you underexpose a little to keep more detail in the highlights, and then use fill light/exposure to lighten it up later. or does that depend on the situation for you?<br>

<br /> also, is there a magical lake of awesomeness that you found and take baths in? some of us would like to find it to see if we can get some leftover awesomeness to rub off on us. ;o)</p>

<p>Thanks for the questions. There is a bit of a time difference to deal with, so forgive me if I appear a little late in replying.<br>

Betty & Lisa - I never tell my clients to do anything on the wedding day. I prefer to document what actually happens rather than what I think should happen. I also believe that once you give a couple some direction, they spend the rest of the day looking for more direction.<br>

In terms of picture aesthetic, that is down to my skills as a photographer and the way I see the world. I honestly don't believe a picture can be improved by interfering, because then the picture isn't a moment - it is a photographer's idea of what that moment should be.<br>

Having this approach forces you to look for images. Controlling the situation would take all of my concentration, and would prevent me from seeing other, possibly better images that could be happening around me.<br>

In terms of posed photographs, I usually cover six groups and a couple of bride and groom pictures. These are done right at the end of the drinks reception (cocktail hour) so the clients have the greatest amount of time with their guests, and I have the most time possible for taking my documentary images. The formal images take no longer than ten minutes to complete. I don't worry about missing images when taking the groups, because if I don't take them, they never happened.</p>

<p>Rick - I currently use Apple's Aperture 2 for all my workflow, along with Photoshop CS4. Very briefly, I create a new project for each wedding and use Aperture to import my CF cards into that project. Inside that project I create two smart albums one which is marked 'picks' and one which is marked 'finished'. The 'picks' album is set to accept images of one star, and the 'finished' album is set to accept PSD files.<br>

When editing the images I go through each image and tag the images that I like with one star. I ignore the images I don't like. Aperture immediately puts the selected images into my 'picks' album. Once the editing is completed I open the 'picks' album and start working on the images. I do basic WB and density correction in Aperture and then open the image in CS4 directly from Aperture. I run my own set of Silver Actions on the image and save it. As Aperture creates a PSD when saving from Photoshop, the image is automatically placed in the 'finished' album. I then open the 'finished' album, renumber the images, and export them at the various sizes I need for the client, web etc. That's pretty much it.<br>

I use managed files, so that everything goes to one library and this is backed up in vaults in two different locations.</p>

<p>David - metering is pretty straightforward. I use evaluative metering in AV mode for 90% of situations. I use the * button to lock the exposure and point the camera at a neutral part of the scene to avoid any hotspots. If the lighting is really tricky I'll switch over to spot metering and meter off the main subject (usually a face). I don't have the LCD review switched on so I'm not distracted by it. I don't worry too much about metering as the Canon is pretty good, and the 14 bit RAW files are so easy to do any minor exposure correction on.<br>

As for awesomeness...well I just take pictures that I like to take, and appeal to my eye. That's really my secret.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Jeff<br>

Do you ever under expose deliberately with the knowledge that you will up the exposure in PS later, like in very dark situations? For example: Your aperture is already set on f/1.2, your ISO set to 1600 (before the 5D MII came along) and the optimal shutter speed would be a 1/10th of a sec for correct exposure, but since you know that will cause too much blur you rather shoot at 1/30th of a sec to get a sharper image, but realising that you will have to correct the exposure in PS.</p>

<p>Also related to very dark situations, what is the key to good focusing? <br>

Thanks <br>

Ben</p>

 

<p>Ben - No I don't ever do that. Deliberately underexposing an image just creates a lot of shadow noise, which gets worse as the iso increases. It is rare that I get in a situation on a wedding that demands 1/10th @ f1.2 at 1600 iso.<br>

In low light, contrast is the key to finding good focus. Either focus manually (which I do) or try and lock onto something in the same plane of focus as the subject, which has higher contrast. </p>

<p>

<p>Hi Jeff,<br>

You've mentioned previously that you use Jorgensen Matted Albums exclusively. A few questions. <br>

What kind of paper do you use for the prints? Do you get a lab to do all the prints for you or do you print them yourself? matt and glossy papers? Any chance of seeing a full album of a single wedding to see how you go about doing the layout of the images. Even a low res version with your copyright watermark across all the pages would be nice to see. <br>

Thanks. Appreciate your sharing!<br>

Derrick</p>

</p>

<p>Derrick - I'm happy to answer questions on shooting, philosophy, workflow etc; but I'm afraid product, business and marketing are out of bounds. Album layouts come under this category I'm afraid. I like to keep things very close to my chest when it comes to my product. Thanks for your understanding. I have a unique product and it won't stay unique if everyone can see it on here ;-)<br>

In answer to your question about paper, I have everything printed by a lab and always on glossy paper. I am a great fan of Jorgensen albums and have a great relationship with SWPM (UK distributors) and Gary Jorgensen. I don't use any other albums other than Jorgensen.</p>

 

<p>With your new Canons, do you still shoot film? If so, what is your film workflow? Do you develop your own B&W? Scans or wet darkroom prints? Medium format or 35mm, and what films and/or cameras do you use? Thanks!</p>

<p>John - I haven't shot a roll of film since April 2005.<br /> I moved totally to digital capture when is was apparent that it had reached the point where the quality (albeit different from film) was of a professional standard. It was also becoming increasingly difficult to find labs capable of printing b/w to the standard I expected.</p>

<p>Jeff - thanks for taking the time to answer questions on here, much appreciated! </p>

<p>I'd like to ask whether you've got any tips on how to develop & refine a personal style? As everyone's uncle seems to own a digital SLR these days it's obvious that creativity & artistic merit remain the true differentiators. So I'm curious whether you take any structured approach to developing these aspects of your work, or whether it's just something that's been more organic? I'd also be very interested in your approach to critiques of your photographs - do you seek constructive criticism to improve? If so, how do you choose the right critics?</p>

<p>Thanks for any response!</p>

<p>Are you sponsered by any of the vendors whose products you use?</p>

<p>Jim - This is a good question, as I firmly believe that for a photographer to be successful they should develop their own style.<br>

If I look at the development of my own style, I've always been interested in light, geometry, and rhythm when it comes to photographs, rather than the content. I guess I am firmly in the Cartier-Bresson camp here, whereby the construction of the image is as important as the content. If we take James Nachtwey's images, many see the human condition, suffering, anger, depression, hatred, fear; I see lines, shapes, and the beauty of the construction of the picture. The content, while often harrowing, is largely irrelevant to me in terms of what excites my eye.<br>

This love of geometry is transposed over to my own work which just happens to be weddings. It could be commercial, portraiture, landscape; it doesn't matter what I'm photographing, as long as what gets me excited visually is present in my images. As my understanding of photography increases through experience, so my style develops naturally and I see work from 10 years ago not being as well constructed as my work from this year. <br>

I think it is important that a photographer finds the thing that turns them on visually in an image, and take that as their starting point. It's easier to be passionate about something you like, rather than something that people say you should like. You may find that colour is your thing, or movement, or contrast. It doesn't matter. Simply take that element and make it work for you. Don't be influenced by other wedding photographers, as you will end up developing a style based on what they like, rather than what you like. Then once you have taken your pictures, ask yourself if you like the image. That is all that matters. If you do, ask yourself why you like the image, and if it can be improved and how it could be improved. That's how you start to develop your style. Experience will ultimately add to that style, and that is a good thing.<br>

In terms of critique, I'm often reminded of Marco Pierre White's comments when he returned his three stars back to Michelin. He said something on the lines that the Michelin inspectors knew less about his food than he did, so what was the point of having them? I believe that to be the case with my work. I haven't had a critique for over ten years. When I did have a critique, the wedding photographers based that critique on their work and approach, often trying to shape my work into their mold. <br>

Critique can be good if it is constructive and comes from outside of the genre you are working in. If you seek critique from within wedding photography, often ego comes into play and negativity can often put people off. It is not easy to critique, and it is more valuable if that critique is impartial. For me, the biggest critic of my work is myself. As long as I am happy with it, then I care not what anyone else thinks about it.</p>

<p>David - I'm not sure where this question is leading, but It is no secret I am an Ambassador for Canon. However, I was a Canon user long before I was asked to be an Ambassador.<br>

A few months before I was approached by Canon, two other companies tried to cut a deal with me over their latest cameras. I thought about it but I just wasn't happy enough with their products. So I passed and stayed with Canon. I felt Canon had the best product for me, and I was happy to forgo deals with others because I owed it to myself and my clients to use what I was happiest and most comfortable with.<br>

Over the years I have been offered all sorts of deals from all sorts of people, but I am just not interested in 90% of them. I only put my name to companies which I genuinely use, and who I am happy with. In most cases, I am happy simply to put my name to a product because it is a great product without any expectation or sponsorship. Jorgensen is a good example, Upstrap is another. </p>

<p>Jeff, when you were given the wedding shoots to do (by your parents), did you resist that initial direction much, or at all?</p>

<p>I ask becuse of the way you shoot with an eye for geometry and rhythm and wonder if you initially preferred working with architecture, et al.</p>

<p>David - I didn't start resisting anything until 1992/1993. For the first couple of years of my career I was just excited to be a young guy taking pictures for a living. Once I started to understand what Cartier-Bresson was creating with his work, that's when a light bulb went off in my head and I moved forward in a new direction. It took me maybe three - four years before I really understood what it was to be a photographer. I wasn't really interested in architecture, it was always people that were my focus.<br>

My thoughts on geometry and rhythm relate more to the construction of an image rather than physical objects such as buildings. An image has a rhythm when the eye is able to relax and look around the image with ease. You know if you hear a piece of music and subconsciously you tap your feet, because your ears and brain are relaxed with that music? To me it is the same with pictures. If your eye can just wander round an image without any discord, and without you being aware of it happening, then that image has a rhythm to it. Geometry in terms of physical or implied lines, shapes, composition etc is important to create that rhythm.</p>

<p>You posted earlier that "I don't worry about missing images when taking the groups, because if I don't take them, they never happened." Wow I wish I could get away with that. How do you educate your Bride and grooms to your style and what they should expect to get in the finished proofs when you are booking them.</p>

<p>Hi Jeff, when I saw your work, I knew that you're the guy I'm looking for because after reading your blog posts I realised how similar our thoughts are.<br>

I have one question. Do you look for good lighting first and wait for something to happen or do you move around looking for an image?</p>

<p>Richard - It is all about managing client expectations. I truly believe that a lot of photographers are actually frightened of their clients. If I'm shooting groups how on earth can I be somewhere else taking pictures? It's impossible. The clients know it is impossible, and if they want groups then I can't be taking other images. So if I don't see and take those images, they never existed. If you miss something minor, does it matter in the scheme of things. Will your clients be standing around taking notes of which pictures you took? No way!! They don't want to; they don't need to; and they should have confidence in what you are doing. The confidence comes from you, and how confident you are when dealing with them. <br /> As an aside, I think wedding photographers are getting all hung up on trying to shoot vast quantities of images in an attempt to instill confidence in their product. A good caterer will supply beautifully presented, great tasting food in small portions so that they don't overwhelm their clients. The smaller and more beautiful the portions, the more the bride will be prepared to pay. What a good caterer won't do is supply a huge plate of tasteless stodge, because a bride won't pay for it. Wedding photographers are becoming so hung up on quantity rather than quality that they are starting to produce great plates of stodge - mediocre images, with poor content and lots of them. Given the choice I truly believe that a client will always prefer 150-200 fabulous images over 2000 mediocre ones. The problem is photographers don't give them that option anymore, and the floodgates have opened.<br /> If you have to shoot that many images for your clients, when on earth do you find the time to actually look for pictures? You can't physically do it, simply because you are shooting everything that moves without thinking. On a twelve hour coverage I will supply less than 200 pictures. I have never, ever had a complaint from a client over the quantity of the images supplied. I have hundreds of testimonials about the quality of my images though.<br /> Then we come to post processing. It must take days to process a wedding with thousands of images. So when do you find time to market your business? <br /> Interesting anecdote. A few weeks ago I had a client visit me regarding her wedding. She'd seen a number of photographers who were all offering substantially more pictures than I was. I got a box of pictures out, opened it up and spread all the prints over the floor. I asked her how many images there were on the floor. "I've no idea but there are loads of them. It's quite overwhelming looking at them all." There were 150 images and she was overwhelmed with the quantity. So how do you think she would feel looking at 500 images, or even 1000 images. Needless to say she booked!! I educated her into why you don't need hundreds of pictures to tell the story of the day. You don't need second shooters, and that one photographer can work simply and effectively and get a great set of images for her.<br /> Yesterday I was doing a seminar with my good friend George Weir. I showed 45 photographers a complete wedding. After the slideshow finished, I asked them if there was anything missing from the coverage. All of them agreed that there wasn't anything missing. There were 148 images in the show. The point I'm trying to make is that once you get hung up on the idea that you have to capture everything, your mindset is all wrong for the great images out there that you should capture. <br /> My philosophy is to take one great image that tells the story of that part of the day, not 300 poor ones.</p>

<p>Samuel - light direction first, and then look for elements within the scene that I can use to construct an image from.</p>

<p>Hello Mr. Ascough,<br>

Thanks for taking the time to respond on this forum. I have a bunch of questions, primarily from the entries in your blog over the past several months. This is largely non-technical.<br>

1. In an interview with BIG Folio, you mentioned: "<strong>My favourite place to go is France. I love the light there, it has a magical quality to it. No wonder so many artists and painters were inspired by it.</strong> " Could you elaborate? What would you want for your ideal lighting conditions to exist? I know you refer to the "<strong>low angular light</strong> " that you get in winter, but the message isn't clear to me.<br /> <br /> 2. You are now a pretty well known name, but in you talked about wedding photographers not being treated with respect in the same interview (where during meal time at a wedding, the "<strong>catereres had simply scraped all the finished plates from the guests onto this big platter, and gave it to us</strong> "). How did you cope with it during your initial years, now that you have almost 20 years under your belt?<br /> <br /> 3. You have repeatedly mentioned that people were always the focus of your work. But, as a rule, you do not spend much time talking to them. But, to capture all their moods on their big day, you obviously need to feel for them. Do you have a strong sense of empathy towards people in general that keeps you going after people for so long?<br /> <br /> 4. This one is about technique. You say that normally, you use two camera bodies, one with a 50mm lens and another with a 24mm lens, and that you prefer to stick to things that remain functional and minimal. Also, you put in some effort not to look like a photographer at a wedding so as to not cause people to stiffen up. How then do you manage to do it with two camera bodies displayed on your person?<br /> <br /> 5. Do you photograph to show people how they actually were on that day or what they wished they were b dramatizing your images a bit?<br /> <br /> 6. Now that you have made your actions avaliable to the public, aren't you bothered that the "Ascough Style" would not be exlcusive any more?<br /> <br /> Thanks for your time and answers.<br /> <br /> -Shashi<br /> http://www.momentsofvirtue.com/</p>

<p>Hi Jeff, thanks so much for joining us today. I enjoy your work, it is inspirational to me. I have a lot to learn and much experience to gain. I am appreciative that you are willing to share with us. <br /><br />My question is how much of the standard fare as far as formals do you do or do you do them at all? If so what is your approach? (Families with bride and goom, wedding party etc.)<br />Thanks again, <br />~Laura</p>

<p>Shashi - If you go to France you will know exactly what I mean. The light has a quality to it that we don't have in the UK. It could be weather, pollution, thermals, climate. I've no idea what causes it, but it is softer than UK light. I like low diffused angular light the best, as this gives direction to the light, and is easier to deal with. In the Autumn in the UK, the sun never gets very high in the sky and is often diffused by cloud. This is lovely lighting to work with.<br>

2. I just got on with it. I still do now. I'm only a well known name within wedding photography. The caterers at that wedding would never have heard of me. I just think it is bad how people treat photographers on the day.<br>

3. I am fascinated by people, and fascinated in particular by people on a wedding day. I do have a strong empathy with my clients, and I often get wrapped up in the emotions of the day. I guess I am quite perceptive to other people's behaviour.<br>

4. It has nothing to do having two (albeit small) cameras, but how you behave in front of people with those cameras. If you behave in a way that attracts attention to you, it doesn't matter if you have a tiny point and shoot, you will still be obtrusive. If you behave quietly and with respect, you can easily remain unobtrusive with four or five cameras, and people will not pay you any attention.<br>

5. I photograph my clients sympathetically, and honestly, but I will never shoot anything that is unflattering to them. <br>

6. I would like to think my style has more to do with my photography, rather than my actions!! A poor image run through my actions will still be a poor image. The actions have been designed in such a way as to allow photographers to develop their own look and style. They are tools rather than effects or magic bullets that will suddenly turn a photographer into me. I like to think of these actions in the same way as choosing a film stock and developer combination. The possibilities are endless once you get to know and use them. Photographers like Josef Isayo, Matt Gillis, Paul Gero and George Weir use my actions and their work looks nothing mine.</p>