making vs taking, or Valenzuela vs Ascough

<p>Sorry this is so long but I want to get into the meat of the issue.</p>

<p>A couple nights ago, Roberto Valenzuela spoke at the Dallas PPA's monthly meeting. He gave a long (but still too short) presentation about the approach he takes to shooting weddings, the approach that is described in his book Picture Perfect Practice. It was an outstanding talk.</p>

<p>During the Q&A, I asked Valenzuela to confirm something that I thought was fairly obvious, that he is a picture "maker" rather than a picture "taker," in other words, that he does a lot of posing and staging of shots. I used the word "photojournalism" in my question and perhaps what I was really trying to ask is, so what do you think about photojournalism. He did confirm the obvious and noted that "photojournalism" is a term that's pretty loosely used. He said that, for example, if the father of the bride was standing near the bride but having him stand closer would make a better picture, he'd ask the FOB to move closer; and he seemed to imply that just about anybody would do the same. Of course, if you look at the outstanding photos on Valenzuela's web site (many of which are reproduced in his book), you'll find this answer just a tad coy. I mean, I don't think he just followed the bride and groom as they strolled away from the wedding into a field of tall grass, etc. But of course the photos he makes are beautiful. </p>

<p>[i've also purchased Valenzuela's videos on wedding shooting and posing. Both are excellent. But the one on weddings in particular — where he basically provides a post mortem of how he shot an entire wedding in Hawaii — makes it clear that, particularly in his individual photos with the bride and groom, he's doing a good bit of fairly intrusive setting up. I don't mean "intrusive" in a judgmental sense.]</p>

<p>• • • • • </p>

<p>While we were chatting, Valenzuela mentioned that he very much liked the work of Jeff Ascough. Now I thought that was quite interesting. All I said was, wow, me too! I do indeed admire Ascough's work a lot. </p>

<p>But unless Ascough has changed his approach significantly since his interviews here at Photo.net, his approach is very very different from Valenzuela's. Ascough says in his interviews specifically and quite clearly that he doesn't pose or stage ANYTHING. For example, and I quote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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. ... 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. [<a href="/learn/wedding/wedding-photography-tips-with-jeff-ascough/">Photography Insight intervew</a>]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, I bet Ascough was being a little coy here, too. I dunno, but I bet he wouldn't feel it was a violation of his esthetic to ask the FOB to stand a wee bit closer to the bride for a particular shot. But I sense that he's basically telling the truth, and perhaps I'm wrong and he's telling the absolute truth. (The formal group photos are of course entirely outside this issue.)</p>

<p>• • •</p>

<p>I find this difference of opinion or approach rather, well, disturbing, because I love the work of both of these guys. I also suspect that I will need to become more of a <em>maker</em> (like Valenzuela) if I'm going to grow my practice. But temperamentally, I'm totally in Ascough's camp. I was trained photographically as a journalist, an old-fashioned news photographer. That allowed me to do a wee bit of setting up: If I was photographing somebody for a news story, I could of course ask them to stand in a certain place. But that has always been about it. I don't take them away from the news scene (or their office or whatever) to do a portrait. At weddings, I really do aspire to be invisible. I'm getting better at <em>finding</em> the shots I want — at reading the lighting, watching for what's going to happen next, etc. I imagine this is Ascough's approach. I want the bride to enjoy her wedding, to savor every moment of it in real time, and I hate to take her out of those moments to stage a shot. But on the third hand: this is really hard work and it leaves a LOT up to chance—almost everything, in fact.</p>

<p>Ascough in one of his interviews also says, if he tried to take all the particular shots (bride + grandmother, bride + Aunt Susie, etc) he'd never be able to cover what was really happening. Boy, I hear that. And this weekend I have a beautiful bride who has given me a long and very specific shot list, which is making me nervous.</p>

<p>Anybody want to share your approach? Are you a maker or a taker? School of Valenzuela or School of Ascough? Can you help me reconcile the approaches of these two masters? Is the reconciliation found in Ecclesiastes in the verse that says, "There is a time to make pictures, and a time to take pictures?" </p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>p.s. Anybody <em>know</em> how Ascough pronounces his last name? Valenzuela said "Ass-coh," but he admitted they have never met. I've always assumed it was pronounced ass-cuff or ass-coff.</p>

<p>I would take whatever these guys say with a grain of salt. Nobody has all the answers and everybody is just trying to do whatever they can to make their business work.</p>

<p>Whatever worked for them would work for you as well - if you were the exact same person, had the same experiences and knowledge, were in the same location with the same clients at a specific point in time. But you're not.</p>

<p>I would say that nobody is like you and nobody can tell you what to do or can live your life or make your decisions for you. In finding an approach that works for you I think you should look at your own situation with no regard what worked for others in the past. Not to say that you can't get inspiration from others but sometimes I think it is just better to focus 100% on your own situation instead of using a lot of energy to try and find a way how to apply others experiences to your own situation and person.</p>

<p>Ask yourself what kind of person YOU are and why YOU want to shoot weddings. Then perhaps ask yourself why you think the CLIENTS you have want and what their expectations are. At some point what they want and what you want have to come together.</p>

<p>I also think to some degree that the notion that the photographer could ever be like a fly on the wall is a fallacy. The moment the bride and groom to be and everybody else start thinking about wedding photography the photographer is a part of the whole enchilada, not just an observer. But only you can find out what you part of it all you are going to play.</p>

 

<p>I think wedding photographers should be versatile enough to adapt to the dynamics of the wedding they're shooting. </p>

<p>Some couples are youthful, outgoing, and will play to the camera making Ascough's style of shooting easier whereas others might be more reserved, camera-shy and need a little encouragement from Valenzuela's style of shooting to feel comfortable. </p>

<p>The difference in the two styles is in the look of the pictures which can both be powerful and compelling depending on the skill of the photographer. </p>

<p>Pete S.,</p>

<p>Thanks for the response. I agree with everything you say, including the "take what they say with a grain of salt" part! Also agree that "I gotta be me". All that is understood. I don't want to become a clone or imitator of Roberto Valenzuela or Jeff Ascough. BUT we can certainly learn from others. I've learned an awful lot from others in this forum who are less well known than Valenzuela or Ascough. I think I understand now pretty well what Valenzuela does, because I've read his book, seen his videos, heard him speak and had the chance to talk to him in person.</p>

<p>Alas, I know far less about Ascough, aside from the couple outstanding interviews published here, and a few other articles in print. I'd like to know a little more about how he makes his (allegedly) non-interventionist approach work so well, and I'd really like to know this because I feel strongly like this approach suits my temperament much better than Valenzuela's take-charge approach. I too often fail to listen to my gut, but what my gut is telling me here is, I'll never be as good as I can be or as happy as I can be if I try to change my personality as well as my technique. Even without knowing more than I do about Ascough, I'm encouraged that he's made his humble approach work for him. I just wish it were possible for me to carry his camera bag for just one wedding. Would just like to watch him work, so I could assimilate that experience, then come back and continue the project of becoming the best Will Porter possible.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>Michael Chang writes,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think wedding photographers should be versatile enough to adapt to the dynamics of the wedding they're shooting.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly agree that we have to be versatile and adaptive. But one doesn't want to be passive or reactive. Actually I suspect that Ascough is <em>extraordinarily </em>versatile and adaptive. He'd have to be, to be able to take the photos he takes without pushing the subjects around.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>By the way, in my earlier post I'd completely forgotten about the following admission, which I add here because it makes it clear that Jeff Ascough inhabits the same commercial plant I inhabit. This comes from the section of the 2010 Photo.net interview with Ascough where he's talking about marking:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as managing my own success goes, while I have been shooting weddings for some time now, it was not my profession. Now it is.... My difficulty is that to survive with enough weddings, <strong>I can’t seem to land enough of them in my more documentary style, and to survive I must take on weddings with far more structured requirements that take me away from documenting what is really happening.</strong> If I try to manage client expectations by limiting the more structured images, they sign with someone else, even reluctantly sometimes because they like my humanistic documentary approach more. Prior to going full time it didn’t matter as my income was from elsewhere. Now it matters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps now that he's a Big Deal, maybe he can do what he likes and he doesn't want for clients. Or maybe not.</p>

<p>Will</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>He did confirm the obvious and noted that "photojournalism" is a term that's pretty loosely used</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To say the very least. Kelby Training has a video of Cliff Mautner who bills himself as a photojournalist. In the video (and I am going from memory here), he comes into a room where the bride is getting her make up done and proceeds to rearrange the room by taking out chairs, moving other chairs, closing some curtains, putting the bride in the chair he wants, removing any distractions, and then photographs the bride getting her make up done.<br /> If memory serves (again), I saw a video with Jerry Ghionis and someone had asked his approach to family formal shots and such. And his reply was that he doesn't do them! He has is assistant do them. Actually, he has his assistant (or one of them anyway) do everything one might expect the wedding photographer to do so that he can concentrate on doing just what he wants to do!<br>

<br /> And who knows how much of that is marketing or perhaps "in my top package I do this". I also think region plays a HUGE role that is often overlooked. We shot a destination wedding in Punta Cana a fews years ago. OMG: the light was beautiful virtually all day. I could very much see being an available light and/or photojournalist photography when the world is cooperating like that. I have never been to England, but I imagine that the overall mindset and underlying expectations are simply different than what they are in Beverly Hills! And this mental conditioning if you will is "invisible". Almost like one's accent. I don't have one. Unless I am somewhere else!</p>

<p>John D. writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If memory serves (again), I saw a video with Jerry Ghionis and someone had asked his approach to family formal shots and such. And his reply was that he doesn't do them! He has is assistant do them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who knew that was even an option!! Now, if only I had an assistant. ;-) <br>

. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And who knows how much of that is marketing or perhaps "in my top package I do this". I also think region plays a HUGE role that is often overlooked. We shot a destination wedding in Punta Cana a fews years ago. OMG: the light was beautiful virtually all day. I could very much see being an available light and/or photojournalist photography when the world is cooperating like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair point. I've never shot a wedding where I didn't find myself fighting the light all day long. </p>

<p>I only started shooting weddings five years ago. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that in the old days when wedding photographers were all using medium-format film cameras, the photographer's job was <em>mostly </em>about the formal photos. The photographers weren't going to the reception to take candid shots, or hanging around the dressing room, or shooting much of the ceremony. I'm glad that wedding photography has branched out a bit. </p>

<p>But I dislike the idea of the <em>photographer</em> being the main event at the wedding. I want the bride and groom to have a beautiful day, and to be present for it, rather than having to wait to see my photos to know what happened at their wedding. I just want to be a witness with a camera. But then we run into the matter of what the client thinks she wants prior to the wedding. I am pretty sure that I know better than the client does what she's <em>going to want</em> in a year or two, based on my experience. I think it's my job to know that. Based on what people buy prints of, almost none of my clients turn out to be as interested in the formals as they think they're going to be. But it's a hard sell <em>prior</em> to the wedding. And gosh, if Jeff Ascough is finding it a hard sell, well, that's kind of depressing.</p>

<p>Ascough is very widely admired, not least by those of us in the wedding photography biz — including Valenzuela. But my guess is that Valenzuela is more successful. </p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>I believe it is pronounced Ash-Cough.</p>

<p>I know Ascough more than Valenzuela. I met Jeff and attended his DWF seminar in Las Vegas some years ago, and due to his extremely well done presentation, am very familiar with how he goes about "taking" wedding images. In addition, I have corresponded with him in past.</p>

<p><strong>As a side note:</strong> IMO, Jeff's earlier candid approach was <em>"informed"</em> by his primary use of a Leica M range-finder film camera, sometimes using a M50 f/1.0 Noctilux. It was this commonality that led to our correspondence, and why I attended his "packed to the rafters" seminar. At that general time he was named one of the top 10 wedding shooters in the world.</p>

<p><em>For those unfamiliar, a Range-finder camera differs from a SLR/DSLR in that it does not show you what the image will look like through the view-finder ... no effect of focal length wide or long, no sense of depth-of-field. Just the taking area indicated by illuminated frame lines with few other "distractions". Many RF users feel this trains the photographer to concentrate on "content" ... what the image is <strong>about</strong> verses what it </em><strong>looks like<em>. </em></strong><em>As such, it was/is often the choice of so called stealthy journalistic type or unvarnished candid photography, especially street and documentary shooters ... which extended to weddings as the "Journalistic" approach came to be so in vogue.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Since then, Jeff has moved on to use of Canon products, and is a Canon Ambassador, but I do believe his general approach was initially informed by use of the rangefinder which became so ingrained as to be second nature. I personally found this to be true for myself, and use a DSLR as well as a rangefinder to shoot candid work ... but still prefer my Leica M to any other camera to do so. <br>

<em><br /></em>In a nut-shell, the more pure candid shooter is a hunter. Jeff''s approach can't be conveyed in a quick web post, but I can lamely try to convey what I took away from his seminar:</p>

<p>Position yourself to take advantage of better direction/quality of light and the best geometry/composition ... and wait like a hunter in a blind for the most interesting action or human event (the latter being my analogy, not his). Obviously there is more to it than just that, but it is one example. </p>

<p>In addition, I teach my students to employ what I call "emotional anticipation"... a technique of heightened sensitivity to the human condition that leads to certain predictable actions. The trick then is to anticipate, to be ready and in position when the picture happens at its most "decisive moment" producing an image that speaks volumes in one frame. See attachment of this sort of image where I spied a gentleman admiring the ladies at the reception bar. His posture and expression says it all.</p>

<p>While it is true that everyone stumbles on a telling image like this from time-to-time, but to do so frequently and consistently at every wedding, be it action packed or more sedate, is another matter. Some may call it luck ... however, I am continually amazed how lucky some photographers are compared to others : -)</p>

<p><strong>Here is the rub:</strong></p>

<p>Most clients, and actually very few wedding photographers actually grasp any of the above. True journalistic images with telling content are washed over by the Tsunami of snapshots ... from those taken with the now ubiquitous smart-phones, to most "candids taken by the wedding shooters themselves ... who practice candid shooting, but either miss the best content altogether, or never see the real image unfolding until it is too late. </p>

<p>Personally, in past, I never had any issues with my clients grasping what I was selling because almost all of them were art directors, designers, illustrators, musicians ... or people in creative industries of some sort. As I expanded outside that circle of influence, there was less and less appreciation of <em>well seen content</em>, and more expectations of what could loosely called "fashion". So, while I continued my efforts at content oriented candid work, I learned to do more structured work with some interference, and especially use of off-camera lighting, until I mastered it. So, now I do both at each wedding. Some pre-planned ideas or "arranged candids", and some pure found images ... the latter still making up the majority of files provided to the client. BTW, use of supplemental lighting doesn't preclude shooting pure found candids ... it just depends on where you place the lights.</p>

<p>In addition, here is a link to a brief "sell piece" I use to convey my positioning/approach to potential clients that voice a preference for less interference ... which includes candid portraits as well as some images that I either suggested or set-up ... but mostly the more pure humanistic <em>unaware</em> captures with content that I feel makes for interesting images that transcend wedding photography as usually though of.</p>

<p>http://fotografz.smugmug.com/Weddings/The-Unconventional-Eye/29417967_cP2wNm#!i=2511718690&k=tngjTRr</p>

<p>Marc </p>

<p><em> </em><br>

</p><div></div>

My approach was always to pose up some great portraits along the way of the day and get the families and formals as

polished looking as possible. Candids and PJ was just that, catch the moment in the best light at the best angle possible,

but everything is a compromise, it's not that easy to get all features to fall together. The moment is the moment, if you're

not in the best place you still need to catch the moment and deal with it better later. The rest if my shots were "gently

posed" because some people just look awkward and Uncle Roy who is about to deliver twins isn't always standing at the

best angle to the bride, but you still want to try and make a nice shot.

<p>Best interplay I have heard was between Denis Reggie who said you are one or the other, , a pj or poser, a spoon or a fork. Joe Buissink's response was he is both, a spork. I agree and do what is necessary at the moment to get the shot I envision. It doesn't have to be perfect, expression trumps perfection per Bambi Cantrell. It's sometimes a judgment that is made in a split second all the time anticipating an improvement but shot before the moment is lost. I find 8 shots of espresso keeps the mind flying so it seems time is standing still somewhat during that decisive moment. Doesn't seem to effect my hand holding low shutter speeds though. One of my all time favorite shots was for a Make a Wish child in which I requested the 13 yr old pin a bracelet he had just won on his mom's wrist- an action instruction- but let him and her position themselves - un-posed, natural and yet perfectly cropped with my foot zoom eliminating stroked side of face and part of missing skull, wheel chair, vomit bucket and tissues(chemo) in his lap. My most powerful image, it makes folks cry. A 6'6" tattooed gangbanger standing beside me and polite enough not to walk through the shot had tears running down his cheeks as I shot it. Ok, so I was so choked up as I was bursting away at 8 fps I couldn't breathe knowing I was capturing the first and probably last gift he would give his mother that he had earned or won. I was so drained by it I had to take the next day off. The boy died 2 months later, the day after Christmas. I guess it falls somewhere between posing and pj. A moment that might not have existed but for my direction, but still not posed in detail. Some of my best wedding shots fall in the same category. Some interplay and the magic happens. Have a bride crying with tears running down and laughing in the same shot. Reminds me why I photograph. </p>

<p>Bob,</p>

<p>It's a cruel tease to describe that photo and not provide a link. I'm a modern man and can always use a good cry. ;-)</p>

<p>Will</p>

 

<p>William, out of respect for the decedent and mother, I don't show it much and wouldn't put it on the web. It's her image. Thanks for asking though. It wasn't the image that was important in the post, but the technique used and reminder to myself why I shoot and how really important our work can be. A photographer can create an image that will be the most precious memory someone will have. It's an awesome responsibility. Refining one's craft as the original poster seems to be seeking is important to make sure to be able to execute when the time comes. </p>

<p>Bob Bill: I fully understand your tact in not sharing the photo and apologize if I sounded pushy. I understood your excellent point even without the photo.</p>

<p>• </p>

<p>I've been thinking about the replies here a lot in the last week and am very grateful to all of you for your perspectives. All the posts have been helpful to me. I want particularly to note Marc W.'s comments.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Most clients, and actually very few wedding photographers actually grasp any of the above. True journalistic images with telling content are washed over by the Tsunami of snapshots ... from those taken with the now ubiquitous smart-phones, to most "candids" taken by the wedding shooters themselves....</p>

<p>Personally, in past, I never had any issues with my clients grasping what I was selling because almost all of them were ... people in creative industries of some sort. As I expanded outside that circle of influence, there was less and less appreciation of <em>well seen content</em>, and more expectations of what could loosely called "fashion".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, this really hits the nail on the head. </p>

<p>I keep reminding myself that those of us who are trying to do this <em>as a job</em> (even a part-time one) are vendors, service-providers, and primarily craftsmen. Now and then a product of craft rises above craft to be recognized as art. I'm confident that, in the 47 million photos taken by guests and amateurs at weddings last year, there is at least one photo by a complete newbie that is <em>fantastic.</em> When I was working on my M.A. in creative writing, one of my teachers opined that practically everybody has <em>one</em> good poem in them. I think the principle also applies to photography. But "I took a pretty good photo once" isn't a resume, and "get lucky" isn't a business plan.</p>

<p>• </p>

<p>We're also dogged by this pseudo-syllogism:</p>

<ul>

<li>You need a great camera to take great photos.</li>

<li>Larry has a great camera.</li>

<li>Therefore (a) Larry can take great photos.</li>

<li>Therefore (b) Larry is a great photographer.</li>

</ul>

<p>It's amazing that anybody at all thinks this, and yet <em>lots</em> of people think this. In fact, this view is so dominant in our culture that I really would hesitate to show up at a wedding with, say, a micro-four-thirds camera or the Sony RX1. If you aren't familiar with the RX1: it's a fixed lens, 24MP full-frame camera with a prime 35 f/2.0 lens. Assuming I could work with just a 35mm lens (and it's not impossible), I would be afraid that nobody in the audience would respect me because I wasn't carrying what they thought was a "serious" camera, you know, with a big honkin' lens, perhaps a vertical grip, etc. </p>

<p>Perhaps the way to be a great <em>artist</em> of wedding photography would be to stay amateur. Don't charge. In fact, scout upcoming weddings, contact the bride and offer to <em>pay</em> to attend as a guest. That way, you'd basically be under no obligation to take any particular shot. You'd be free to pursue the shots. And if that meant staking out a spot where the lighting and the scene is marvellous and waiting ten or twenty minutes for something visually interesting to happen there, well, you could do it. If you came away from the wedding with just one really good shot, you'd consider it a day well spent. </p>

<p>In the past — before the PJ trend — wedding photographers were hired not just because wedding guests didn't generally have cameras with them, but because the pros knew how to do something that the non-pros didn't — take a few good formal photos — and the amateurs <em>knew</em> this about the pros, they regarded the pros as pros or experts in a difficult craft. I wish I knew more about the history here but my impression is that, mid-twentieth century, the wedding photographers were not typically working for 8 hours at a wedding. Digital photography has not just put a camera into everybody's hands, but given a lot of people the unearned sense that they're <em>good.</em> Why this should be is a bit of a mystery to me. I mean, just about everybody has and knows basically how to use a stove, but few people want to become caterers. Most of us realize there's more to catering a wedding than being a "good cook" at home in your own kitchen. Maybe it's that we see cooking as <em>work,</em> even when we do it for ourselves, while taking photos is fun <em>and absurdly easy.</em> </p>

<p>So it does seem that we who want to distinguish ourselves, who don't want to remain amateurs, must make it obvious that we can do something special, and <em>something that our clients will recognize as special,</em> as something they couldn't do themselves even if they got lucky.</p>

<p>And, almost by definition, that's harder to do than it looks.</p>

<p>•</p>

<p>By the way, I got an alert from photo.net in my email, with a post that included an obviously-staged but rather nice photo of a couple kissing sweetly (PG) on a bed. But the post is missing here. Maybe poster deleted right after posting? </p>

<p>Will</p>