MASTER LESSON: Reportage Wedding Photography

neilambrose · October 27, 2009

This is the first of a series of Master Lessons by photo.net's very own experts in the field. Please join me in welcoming Neil Ambrose on reportage wedding photography.

At the end of the article, you will find instructions for an assignment. If you want to participate, do the assignment and then post your images for Neil to review. You may post one image and a link to others on your photo.net portfolio, or you may create a composite of images and post it. The assignment is optional, and in the meantime, questions and constructive discussion are welcomed.

--Moderator

</blockquote>

<h1>Introduction</h1>

I am one half of <a href="http://ambroseandalison.com">Ambrose & Alison</a> - we're a documentary wedding photography business based in the UK. Our style depends on telling the story of the wedding day through reportage - naturally, candidly and without intervention. We offer a visual style that combines documentary rigour with an artistic aesthetic. We work together in all our coverage, finding that two shooting angles allows us to tell people's wedding stories more easily. This article is an insight into how we practice our style of photography. It's brief and imperfect, but I hope it may be useful to anyone who wants to include reportage elements in their wedding coverage.

<h2>About reportage</h2>

The word 'reportage' occurs fairly frequently in discussions of wedding photography. It's most often used as a catch-all phrase to describe moments when the photographer takes snapshots of the wedding party or guests, and tends to be used interchangably with the concept of candid or casual photography. In some cases, it's used as a blanket description for any kind of photography where the shot was loosely composed and people were not looking directly at the camera. Strictly speaking, these are misconceptions.

Reportage - in the true sense - is actually something very different: it's the art of observing and re-telling of a factual story in pictures. And, contrary to the general perception, it's actually one of the most challenging genres of photography to do well.

<h2>What makes it challenging?</h2>

The photographer needs shots that are important to the narrative but that also work well as images in their own right. Good images require strong composition, lighting and timing. The great challenge is to produce strong images that deliver narrative and artistic quality without stage-managing anything. When adopting a pure documentary approach, the photographer works without influencing events, making images from what they see happen and not what they make happen.

<h2>What makes a picture?</h2>

As with any picture, the core ingredients are composition and light. Technical decisions will influence how the picture works - such as choice of lens, shooting angle, shooting height and timing of the shot - and help to set the rhythm of the story. The final ingredient (and the most important) is content. For a shot to work in narrative, it has to say something that justifies its place in the story.

<h2>What makes a story?</h2>

Any story - even a visual story - must observe a narrative flow. It needs a beginning, middle and end, and requires description of the environment and characterisation of the cast. All of these things must be present in the pictures. The story also requires a narrator and a point of view. In the case of a photographer, their presence as the narrator is felt in their treatment of the pictures - how they framed the shot; what they left in or out; whether they used color or monochrome; whether they printed it dark or light; the lens, aperture and shutter speed they used.

<h2>My approach</h2>

One of the main differences in approach between reportage and traditional wedding photography is shooting for the story and not the print. The traditional photographer is interested in saleable pictures. As a reportage photographer, I'm certainly interested in good pictures, but I'm also looking for ingredients that will tell a compelling story. To achieve that, I have to shoot for myself and not for the client. While that may seem counter-intuitive, it's an important quality control because it helps ensure coherency of the end product. If I were to photograph anything or everything I thought the client might like, I'd probably end up with a jumble of images without a clear viewpoint and no underlying story. More than likely, it would be a collection of random snaps.

<h2>Interacting with people</h2>

There are two schools of thought on documentary approaches. One is to be a participant observing the action from inside. The other is to be a non-participant looking at the action from outside. Both work, but for weddings I've found that the latter approach is more suited to the rapid pace and limited timescale of a single day. But, to make it work, it's important to become transparent to everyone as quickly as possible. I approach this in three phases: establishing trust; building familiarity; becoming invisible.

<h3>Trust</h3>

Trust begins at the first client consultation. I spend time explaining how documentary photography works and making sure that it's what the client wants. I show past weddings in full to demonstrate narrative, and I explain exactly how key shots were taken - what was happening, what I was doing. By the time I'm hired there is a strong level of understanding and rapport and we have established mutual trust. On the day of the wedding I start very casually (often over a tea or coffee) and just chat. It's light-hearted friendly banter to rebuild rapport and set the scene for the day.

<h3>Familiarity</h3>

After a few minutes I bring out my camera and walk the room taking some basic environment shots. Some of these may be useful to the story, but most will be thrown away. The main goal is to get the client, their family and friends used to me and the camera. After a few minutes of this I start photographing people from a modest distance, gradually moving closer until I'm at my preferred working distance (normally around 5 to 8 feet). Most of these photos will be unimportant.

<h3>Invisibility</h3>

Given the hyper-activity of the wedding day it doesn't take long until everyone is thinking about other things. By that time they've acclimatised to the presence of the camera and I'm not of much interest. It's at that point that I start to become part of the background - people see me but no longer take any notice. And while the wedding party are aware I'm a photographer, to everyone else I'm just another guest with a camera. This is the point where I start to look for real moments that I want to include in the story. For an average wedding, it usually takes around 20 minutes from first arrival to becoming invisible, and sometimes quicker if the subjects are not camera shy.

<h2>Equipment</h2>

I use a variety of cameras depending on the type of wedding, the location and the time of year. There is no perfect camera except the one that I'm using (in other words, the camera in the hand is always worth more than any number in the bag). I always use two cameras, often a pair of Leica rangefinders because I like their size and weight, and they're sufficiently low-key that they seldom attract much attention. However, they're only practical at close distances, so for longer shots I use a D700 and F6 with a range of prime and zoom lenses, and in certain venues also a medium format rangefinder camera. Film is an important ingredient of everything I do and I include it in every wedding.

I remove anything that adds to the perceived size of the camera - no lens hoods except in strong light, and no flash unit mounted on the camera. No brackets or rigs of any sort. I don't usually wear a camera bag, preferring to carry my bag as I move round, and just have the cameras I need on shoulder straps or in the hand. If I'm using primes I'll limit myself to just two lenses, usually a moderate wide and a moderate telephoto. Cards, film, batteries - other things I may need quickly - stay in my jacket pockets. The goal is to have everything to hand and never be looking for things, and to be unremarkable in appearance. Dressing with lots of camera gear, bags and webbing belts is not my thing.

I have a couple of strobes and radio triggers in my kit bag if I need them, although it's very rare for me to use them. They're insurance in case there's no usable form of natural light; otherwise I much prefer to shoot with the light I find.

<h2>Finding the shot</h2>

Weddings are stories that unfold naturally, so the basic idea is just to let events happen naturally and be there for interesting moments. But it's often useful to have some form of framework to help filter images. The following are some of the things that are helpful to me.

<h3>Fresh eyes</h3>

I never have any idea of what I'll be photographing on the day. I don't visit venues beforehand and I try not to have specific shots in mind. I like to react to everything as I find it, and I find that experiencing everything for the first time helps keep my senses receptive. I try to avoid repetition between assignments, so if revisting a previous venue I'll position myself somewhere different so there's always something new.

<h3>Observation</h3>

It's important to be aware of people and see how they act. Observing people and their interaction together tells me something about the ingredients of the story. Not everyone is equally extrovert, and it's often a mistake to focus too closely on a specific group of people, which can lead to an unbalanced or one-sided story. It also stops being a true reflection of the wedding, as the entire day is a set of different interactions and different stories. A single moment can sometimes be referenced through multiple perspectives. If they reinforce each other, it can be an interesting narrative device.

<h3>Anticipation</h3>

Anticipation is a key ingredient, and perhaps the one thing that can't be learned by any means except practice. Being able to predict how someone will move, whether they'll walk into or out of the light, or whether they'll step back and block the shot is important. People who struggle with anticipation can often find that potential moments fall apart before they catch them.

<h3>Layers</h3>

I take a lot of influence from cinema. Most films tell stories in layers - for example, a wide shot to establish context, then closer shot to hone in the protagonist, and a cut away to a detail. The same concept works with stills, and if I'm looking for successive shots I tend to think about layers in the same way. That's one of the reasons I use two cameras, as it's the quickest way of reframing a shot with different lenses.

<h3>Contrasting elements</h3>

I spend time looking for supporting details or elements that are incongruous to the scene. Sequences work well if there are occasional moments of contrast. Too many similar shots become tiring, and the occasional cut-away to something very different helps punctuate the story.

<h3>Light</h3>

I also look carefully at the light to understand what it can offer to the shot. Flat, even lighting can be very attractive if it's diffuse and warm. However, in the UK the light is often uncooperative, so as far as possible I look for light that has a strong directionality. I like working with the subject back-lit or cross-lit, and will often adjust my position relative to what I'm photographing to ensure I'm shooting into or at 90 degrees to the light. This is where technical understanding plays a part, as the most interesting shots are often the most difficult to get right. If I'm using a strobe (rare, but it does happen from time to time) I may focus the light and bounce it from anywhere except above the subject. Walls, floors, corners of rooms all increase light directionality, but shots from above reduce it. A simple cardboard snoot can be more useful than a diffuser dome. Even better, is a snooted strobe with radio trigger that can be used as a genuine directional light source and placed behind the subject.

When I'm working with natural light, especially window light, I'll often over-expose to get light that wraps around the subject. I also find Rembrandt lighting attractive - it's flattering and dimensional - and it can usually be achieved by metering from highlights to retain sufficient levels of shadow. The important thing is to make the light work for the shot. Used with care, natural light provides a wealth of rich and subtle effects. I prefer to pre-visualise the shot so I know when to ignore the meter reading suggested by the camera and do something different.

<h3>Depth</h3>

It's an old compositional technique but still one of the best. Varying depth of field through focus can isolate a subject and make it clear to the viewer what's being described. Varying depth of the image through foreground elements - for example, by including a framing device - can add a change of rhythm.

<h3>Place</h3>

Stories happen in locations, and any sequence of images needs a sense of place. This is doubly important for weddings, where the choice of venue has usually been a major consideration. Shooting the same location from different directions provides for multiple levels of description.

<h2>Editing the work</h2>

As a general trend, reportage photographers probably shoot more images than traditional wedding photographers. This places a greater importance on the editing process. As far as the situation allows, I try and shoot fairly tightly as it makes the process easier later. But, there's a limit to how much anyone can edit in their head while they're working, and it's very difficult to do that with any level of accuracy or control. So the final story is always sequenced at the editing stage.

I prefer to edit very tightly, and would much rather deliver a stronger story using a subset of the images than deliver everything that was shot. As a team, our reject rate is very low on technical grounds, but I edit ruthlessly and can sometimes leave work in the computer because I didn't need it - duplicate moments, weaker shots of a set from several angles, or too much similarity in subject. I never feel it's my job to give every shot - rather, it's my job to give every shot that was needed. This point of view can be contentious among photographers and is perhaps one of the significant philosophical differences between a documentary shooter and a traditional wedding photographer.

I divide the day into sections and edit each section individually. I look for hero images, context shots, points of detail, points of emotion, and moments where the composition and light really came together. I lay these out as a rough cut. When I've edited each section in this way I have a good idea of how the pictures are working as a set. I then go back and add any images that may be needed to round out the story, occasionally changing the order if it helps improve the rhythm of the set as a whole.

Timeline is an important consideration, so nothing should deviate far from correct chronological order. Most weddings tend to have a change of location - home to ceremony to reception, for example - and I make sure to include transition images that bridge the gap between sections, otherwise the jump from one place to another in the timeline can be abrupt.

<h2>Conclusion</h2>

Reportage coverage of weddings can be a lot of fun, but it's nearly always much harder work than it sounds. A normal wedding day runs to 12 or 14 hours, during which time my partner and I need to stay constantly alert and receptive to everything around us. A destination wedding can run to several days. It can be tiring mentally and physically.

I strongly urge anyone engaged in reportage photography to charge effective rates for their time, not only for the photography but also the editing stage later. As a genre it should not be confused with 'shoot and burn' - far from it. The deliverable depends on consistent quality of all the images, so everything the client sees is prepared to album quality. There's no concept of giving proof images and preparing only the selects. Many reportage photographers I know therefore set their rates far higher than their traditional style colleagues. Before designing this approach into your business, it's worth considering whether your market can sustain this style of working and allow you to make a profit.

<h2>More examples</h2>

The examples I've used here are pretty small and lack a lot of detail. They also lack a lot of context, as you don't get to see them in relation to what came before or after. You can find larger images and more of the story at <a href="http://ambroseandalison.com" target="_blank">ambroseandalison.com</a>

<h2>How to practice</h2>

When I'm not shooting weddings I'm a street photographer. Many of the principles I apply in weddings are those that I learned taking photos on the street - especially working unnoticed, reading the light and timing the shot. If you get the chance to try street photography I can recommend it, not least because it raises the bar in terms of technique. People at a wedding expect to be photographed - strangers on the street do not. And the street offers no control - you truly have to work with what you find and nothing more. You can see my learning curve <a href="http://36photos.org/" target="_blank">here</a> if you're interested.

<h2>Assignment</h2>

For those who want an assignment, here is a small project to get you started.

Use 8 images to tell a sequenced story. Assemble the 8 shots into one composite image which can be loaded here for discussion. Usual photo.net rules apply - 700px wide with caption.

<h3>Subject matter</h3>

Anything you like. Weddings may be an obvious choice, but any other topic is equally valid. The aim is to tell a visual story and experiment with light, shooting style and rhythm while working with a documentary approach.

<h3>Rules</h3>

<ol>

<li> Shoot what you see, not what you set up. It's about honing your observation skills, not your coaching skills. </li>

<li> Subjects should not be obviously aware of the camera. Stay unobtrusive and capture real moments. </li>

<li> Work with the light that's available and make it an ingredient of your story. </li>

</ol>

pete_s. · October 28, 2009

Excellent article Neil!

I frequently see people use "telling the story of the wedding" about their photography yet few seems to think in cinematic terms and assemble their images with the same thought process you outline. Great of you to bring this up.

I don't know if you are familiar with and have considered applying the rules of continuity and camera placement used in cinematography as well?

Another factor to consider when assembling images in albums or books is that you get a left and a right page both visable at the same time. I was wondering if you think about layout already at the shooting stage? I was thinking along the line of shooting images that are to be used as a "pair" or panoramic shots intended for double spreads or maybe even consider the selection of horisontal versus vertical composition based on the format of album or other output?

neilambrose · October 28, 2009

Hi Pete - thanks for the questions.

The answer to your first part is 'kind of' - at least as far as the camera placement goes. That's one of the advantages of working as a pair. We can choose angles in the same way a cinematographer might deploy an A and B crew on a film. However, that's not applicable everywhere, as there are only a few parts of the day where we shoot together. But it's certainly useful for the ceremony, for example, where we can sequence part of the story with long shots from the back and tight shots from the front, and also take a similar approach for the dance(s).

The sequencing often cuts between different views - maybe whole room, guests from a distance, b+g at altar, reverse view of b+g, cut away to parents, back to b+g, etc ... As long as each of us photographs both tight and wide shots from different angles there's enough to work with later.

The page layout is interesting. There are always a few images that I can see working as double page when I take them. But otherwise a lot of the layout questions are resolved at editing time when the sequence is known and page flow can be calculated. We've been known to insert additional images if we wanted to get the page flow correct so we could place a core image on the right page. Sometimes it also depends on the camera - I occasionally shoot with an Xpan and that requires a more careful approach to layout; panoramas only work in widescreen, so are clear candidates for double pages.

We also shoot a lot of details which are not intrinsic to the story, but which make nice section breaks in the album. This also gives us some breathing room to get the sequence right. And, we've been increasingly interested in higher-end albums that are handmade; they're the perfect vehicle for more 'arty' type layouts. For example, at a recent wedding I spent time shooting trees and bamboo on Tri-X because I wanted to use them for b+w interleaves that would punctuate the album.

pete_s. · October 28, 2009

Thanks for your reply Neil.

I have abother question about the assignment.

I can certainly see the benefit of practicing skills doing street photography but as you said, at a wedding people expect to get photographed but on the street they don't. How do you cope with that? Personally I feel a bit uneasy about it which makes me want to learn more about it. Do you have any tips how to get started?

neilambrose · October 28, 2009

Pete, I got started just by jumping right in and having a go.

For a long time I didn't see the point of street photography and it was one of my least favourite genres; I was more into shooting landscapes and careful compositions and couldn't see the merit in a loose shot of someone on the street. That all changed when I saw an exhibition of Robert Frank's work in London, and I was lucky enough to hear a talk by the curator of the Tate Modern's collection, where he really decomposed every shot and explained what was in the pictures... After that I was hooked and knew I wanted to try it for myself. I started buying lots of street photography monographs (Winogrand, Friedlander, Frank, Stettner, etc) and began to see something in the aesthetic.

I got started by just taking a camera I knew well and loading it with a roll of Tri-X. My first few shots were total rubbish as I didn't have any method, either for finding shots or for filtering what I was seeing. It was just random, and showed in the results. Getting over photographing people isn't too hard. The best way is just to forget about the camera for a while and look at people - really see where they are in respect of their environment; the cast of a shadow, the texture of a wall, the juxtaposition of people coming together in a crowd, etc. Once you start to see patterns you forget you're photographing people - it's just a brief moment in time you're capturing. You can also get over the fear of people by looking them in the eye. When you can hold someone's gaze in a crowd and they look away before you do then you're ready to start taking pictures.

It also helps to be totally normal. Nothing is more weird than someone trying to be stealthy. I just stand right in the pavement and raise my camera, hold it to my eye for ages so people start walking round me, and then take the shot I want when I see it happen. With more practice, it becomes quite easy taking shots while walking, and you can soon master the accurate hip shot. Spotting the shot is much harder than taking it.

There's lots of good advice to be had in the street photography section of this site. Plenty of people there know exactly what they're doing and are free with their advice.

Hope that helps. There's really nothing more to it than taking pictures.

You also might find <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/6497905">this movie</a> interesting.

j_arnott · October 28, 2009

Excellent lesson and beautiful work, Neil. Thank you. When shooting reportage how do you handle questions and requests about the more traditional posed group shots with the families, wedding party, etc? Do you explain during your initial meetings that you don't take them as they are not consistent with your style of shooting? Or do you simply oblige them? My experience is that even though the couple swears up and down that they want a "photo journalistic" approach to their wedding that they will indeed want, expect even, traditional group shots. Thanks again.

neilambrose · October 28, 2009

Hi Mitchel - thank you, and great question.

Yes, you're right - there's no avoiding the formals. The short answer is we oblige people with what they ask for. We tend to suggest practical limits on what can be done - usually not more than 30 minutes, and ideally 8-10 groups or less. We do them fairly rapidly, certainly with a lot less set-up and arrangement than many other photographers. We still like to get people looking relaxed though, so we don't pose people beyond basic arrangements for clear line of sight, etc.

Sometimes we take the picture before people are ready, or get them arranged perfectly and then fake a technical problem so people relax and look and smile at each other - which is the point we press the shutter. They're not documentary photographs in any sense, but they have an increased feel of realism than some group portraits I've seen.

If people are laughing and smiling they tend to look pretty good - well balanced on their feet, good expressions, lively. The moment you ask someone to look at the camera they go rigid, unbalanced, and often artificial. It then takes the work of a good portrait photographer to relax them again and make them look like real people.

We don't tend to include the formals in the albums, though. We very much view them as a separate piece of work unrelated to the story we're shooting. We include them in the images we supply, but otherwise the formal photographs are typically offered either in small books or as enlargements.

uk · October 28, 2009

An excellent piece, Neil. I truly respect your work as you know and the description here of your technique and purpose are exactly as I know you to proceed. An honest and thorough account.

Your suggestion to pursue street photography as a training ground is excellent. I would add the need to treat work in the field seriously and with commitment. The pictures are there, but a casual jaunt with a camera will not reveal them, IMO. Your website diary is evidence of the importance of this and your results are fantastic. I visit regularly and I recommend others to do the same.

Regards,

Gary

William Michael · October 28, 2009

Neil, thank you for sharing your knowledge.

I would very much like to take up the assignment, especially considering that for nearly all of my Wedding Career I shot Weddings with very little definitive Reportage Style.

I had, by happenstance, a job about three weeks ago where I was asked to deliver 28 images for a Book Collage entitled “Rites of Passage”.

The subject is 16. She is a talented Artist and is studying Photography and Digital Media. Her brief was explicit and concise. I think you would understand “The Début” – this occasion is the 2009 equivalent thereof.

I needed to adapt my general Wedding Style, which mostly is to work close with FLs of about 28 to 85, but I had to relinquish my “control” in regards to my passionate (mostly covert and suggestive) direction.

I still maintained a relaxed rapport with all parties before the time of shooting but (hopefully) was just a third party observer whilst I was working.

It was difficult to cull the 28 images to 8 – but I did so, concentrating on the section “Getting Ready”.

I did flaunt your rules by adding a ninth image – which was taken during pre-function drinks – she looked at me – there was no direction in that image at all – but adding it kind of makes the sequence “finished”, IMO.

Having read your Article after I did this “assignment”, I can see some strengths and weaknesses of my approach and most importantly I acknowledge that I need to address and reconsider how I might adapt using longer Shooting Distances – generally – to place the subject “in situ” more, rather than attempting to adapt my Wedding Style which is – generally - “up-close and personal”.

That said, I would still like to submit this as my assignment for critique.

My Photography (as a business) is very much less about Weddings now and also I am placing much more emphasis on Photography, just for me – the skill of using pictures to tell stories is something I wish to hone.

Thanks again,

WW

neilambrose · October 29, 2009

Gary - thanks for the excellent advice. Yes, street photograpy doesn't usually deliver immediate success, and it takes a while to get into the zone. (I think when I started I didn't get anything decent until I'd been trying for about a month). I appreciate your remarks and I'll catch up with you by email.

neilambrose · October 29, 2009

William, thank you for finding the time to take up the assignment.

I like your choice of subject - getting ready for a debut is a concept that's easily understood. You've also been quite brave in your choice of format, as you've had to edit your work twice. The first time to select your images, and then a second time to decide what to crop from the frame. I think this has had an influence on your end result. (I will refer to individual frames by number - left to right, top to bottom.)

There's no point me telling you anything about working candidly. Regardless of how little reportage you practice at the moment, you're clearly very comfortable working close and this is reflected in your subjects. There's plenty of activity, you're right in the heart of it and no one is paying you any attention. You can safely consider that aspect mastered.

The first eight frames are all natural light, and I like your treatment. Frames 4 and 6 are great examples of controlling the light, and in the second you've also combined window light with mirror light to get a modeling effect. The lighting in frame 2 also works well because it projects mood and concentrates the action on a detail. It's obviously a good one to include in the set as it works on two levels - added drama from the lighting, and concentration on a core motif of the preparation ritual.

One thing that might be under-represented is a sense of place. You've already indicated that you may have excluded too much context, and I think I'd agree. Frame 4 is perhaps the best example of environment - it contains everything that's essential to the understanding. I suspect in other frames you've been forced to omit much of the environment in order to get the crop you wanted, and consequently, some of the images may be short on context. I think frame 3 is probably where you've been compromised the most. You've pursued a crop that's very strong compositionally, but at cost of content. It would be interesting to see what you had in the original 3:2 format.

The other thing that I notice (and I'm sure you've seen it yourself) is repetition in subject matter and positioning in the middle of the sequence. Frames 5, 6 and 7 are similar in terms of subject matter and treatment, albeit it from different angles. If this were an album layout I'd probably look to change the order, or capitalise on the similarity by displaying the three frames as a triptych. Likewise, frames 8 and 9 are also quite similar - angle of view, position in the frame, etc.

Things that are missing? Maybe a wide shot - the whole room, the people in it, the interaction between the girl and her dressers, and perhaps something about the destination and reason for the preparation. There's nothing internal to the pictures that shows this is for a debut. Perhaps a detail of the invitation, or a wide shot from outside the venue and the girl exiting her car?

If I had eight images to play with for a similar story I'd probably use them like this: two wide shots for environment (maybe one for the home, one for the destination); two medium wide shots for the dressing process; two tight shots for close-ups; one transitional for the journey; one close-in wide shot with girl's face on arrival (her expressions, reactions to arriving at the ball), juxtaposed with expressions of her friends in the frame too if possible. Then I'd play with the order, keeping the timeline but changing the sequence of the images to avoid adjacent frames that were too similar visually.

But then it's easy for me to say that, of course, since I've got the luxury of being an armchair critic. Regardless of this artificial critique process, you've delivered a vibrant and engaging story for your client and I'm sure you delighted her.

Thanks again for taking the time, and I'm very pleased to see something of your shooting style.

lindsay_dobson · October 29, 2009

Neil, you have provided a fascinating insight to your work, and have rightly identified the misconceptions which surround true reportage photography. Captivatingly written (as always) and beautifully illustrated with stunning photography. I shall revisit this page many times and, if I can gather my wits and my confidence, I will try what I've learned. Gulp (!)

William, thank you for bravely taking on the assignment, I enjoyed the photographs and the story they told, really lovely work. Your contribution together with Neil's commentary will also help readers to visualize the flow and thought-process behind the collection, and hopefully encourage others to undertake a valuable and thought-provoking exercise.

William Michael · October 29, 2009

Thank you Neil, for the indepth commentary and critique - I have absorbed much and I have printed this for a re-read myself and for my reference; and also to show the girl - as she too is a keen Photographer and consistantly top in her Theory and History class and also her Practical work.

***

The square format was a decision before the shoot. The concept was quite specific – 28 square format images as a work “Rites of Passage”. I think it takes little thinking to understand the symbolism of the formats the number and the title, considering the overlay of what the Début originally represented and how our Society has changed from the Tribal Rites girls and boys endured and what residual rituals, live on today. . .

Thinking square format was my biggest challenge. I have already noted that it compromised my capacity when I lost my train of thought (thinking square) momentarily for frame #7

I appreciate the comment that I was brave to go square crop – thank you – I take that to mean I was just brave taking on the assignment :) – but in saying that this gig came at a great time for me – as did this Master Series and this topic, serendipitous really, because I want to move to new challenges, Photographically.

***

Thanks also for the comment about my ability to work candidly. If I might make a small comment in this regard: I truly value Rapport with the Clients / Subjects. I have commented upon this often, (for Weddings) I do work close and I am Tactile and Directive – to do that one must have Rapport and the Client’s Trust.

***

Regarding using Available Light – that is my preference – I use very little Flash, ever. I don’t mention that often here at Photonet, because IMO all Wedding and Portrait Professionals should master Flash, both Studio Flash and location “on camera / on bracket” Flash. After mastering Flash, then one is in a position to choose to use it, or not.

***

Regarding what I have omitted from some frames and the resultant lack (or loss of) context – I think it is more that I need to practice “seeing the context” or “seeing the story unfold” when I am working - I think most of the time I had the Square Crop controlled in the viewfinder – I think I defaulted to “an individual intimate tight shot” rather than considering each, as part of the final story. The more I re-read your Article and then your critique, this is how I am critiquing myself - - -I would appreciate your guidance: Am I thinking about this correctly? Under-representation of the sense of place, falls in this aspect too?

I have included, below, all of Frame #3 for your interest.

***

The point you bring up about repetition is interesting, (frames 5, 6, & 7) I take that on board.

But the 9 images I presented are from 28. In the original set of 28 there are other images between those three images #'s 5,6 & 7.

BUT I have learnt something from your comment. For the Album all my 28 were arranged rigidly in chronological order – what I have learnt is that need not be so. Taking your advice and reworking the set of 28 we have changed three images' order and the result is a better, more visually pleasing result – thank you.

***

I take your point that there is nothing in the first eight frames to indicate that the outcome is a Début – I think that was a mistake – even though in the set of 28 it is obvious – that does not unfold until later. GOOD POINT, thank you.

To keep the interest - I must stimulate some direction or end point to the story early on, like in a movie or novel - that is obvious now, but was an oversight at the outset: but it is embedded into my brain now - I will do better next time. Thanks.

***

I am glad I could share part of my style - I was very pleased to share it with you. My Wedding Business was structured such that internet display was contractually quite restrictive, and I am still bound by those arrangements. In no way do I take the process of critique as artificial or from the armchair: yes it can be “easy” to make critique from afar – but for me, it is about what is seen from afar and what is seen by another pair of skilled eyes which is important.

Thank you for your very valuable critique and feedback.

regards,

William

***

Lindsay, thank you for the comments.

***

Neil – below is the full frame JPEG of #3.

As is my general technique – I pulled only one shot of this scene as I was “confident” at the time of capture.

Spot meter on skin tones.

Centre Point Focus on the right hand (just below it actually) & then Recompose.

I could “see in my head” at the time of capture the centre square cropping - equally both edges.

Tech Specs: 5D + 24L – F/4.5 @ 1/320s @ ISO1250, Hand Held, Manual Exposure, Spot Metering.

I am interested in your comments.

Mine are: I should have stepped back, one large step and dropped the camera viewpoint a tad to keep the same up angle – it was very important to me to have her face, as a refection. ? ? ?

WW

William Michael · October 29, 2009

I recommend others take up this stimulating exercise, get involved – it is incredible what is learnt simply by doing it - then reviewing it.

Something new after each re-read and each perusal of one's own work. I woke up at 0400 this morning adding notes and ideas to my shooting diary.

One would pay upwards of a week's salary for the calibre of this one on one tuition.

WW

picturesque · October 29, 2009

Neil--I have several questions which are related.

1.) Have you ever been 'invisible' while using flash in a situation where there aren't a lot of other activities, lights and sound going on? In other words, say during the getting ready phase as opposed to the reception.

2.) I would guess that you consider any image where the subject is looking at the camera or is clearly aware of the camera as 'not qualified' to be reportage. Do you do or accept any--say it happens by accident? And when a subject is painfully aware of the camera at every turn, what do you do or say to keep invisible?

William Michael · October 30, 2009

Ah!

If I might buy a little more of your time too, Neil - further to the last question Nadine asked:

In my frame #9 - the Subject is clearly aware of the camera - but it was She who beckoned me to grab that shot . . . her impulse and intent was clear to me at the time. . . So does that qualify for "reportage" in the true sense (or your definition of it)?

I merely grabbed that moment in time "reporting her contrived action" - I guess akin to a "famous" person stepping out of the limo for the "reporters" doorstop . . .

Where is the line in the dirt? If a Bride sees the camera - - - and then with true emotion simply plays to it?

Esoteric, perhaps - but hey I like thinking / discussing this type of stuff . . .

WW

neilambrose · October 30, 2009

Nadine, thanks for the question. Flash doesn't make 'invisibility' any easier, but there are ways to minimise its effect on people. I'd be unlikely to use on camera flash, but I might certainly place a strobe out of sight - say behind a piece of furniture - and fire it at the ceiling. This reduces the perceived pop and makes flash work fairly unobtrusive. I work the flash on manual and dial it down to 1/64 or 1/128, so it adds to the ambient light but doesn't overpower it. I'm not interesting in lighting the room per se, only in raising EV a couple of stops. If there's a natural light source I take that into account too. North facing window light is lovely, but not always available. But a strobe bounced off the ceiling above the window, or aimed at the corner on the same side as the window, can give something of the same feel. If I need balanced fill I bounce off a side wall. In all cases, the flash is never pointing at the subject, so the shot doesn't feel lit and intrusion is minimised. William - thanks for showing the full frame. I agree, it's quite a tricky shot. Stepping back and shooting wider and lower would have given you a bit more context, although might also have weakened the composition. This is where there's a difficult line to be drawn between content and form - given a stark choice, people will naturally prefer one over the other according to their instincts. Possibly there was another shot to be had by moving in very close to the mirror and making the reflection the core subject, with the girl's arm cutting across the frame. This would still have made something of the accessories on the shelves, and given you the lines of perspective in the top of the frame; all the ingredients working together to make an interesting composition. Of course, I can spot that now because there's time to think about it. Whether I'd have seen it at the time I don't know. I miss shots, same as everyone else. And for both of your questions: Do I care if people are looking at the camera? Yes and no. There's certainly nothing that makes a look to camera unsuitable for reportage - it doesn't break any rules that I know of - but it does alter the aesthetic. If the moment happened and was caught as seen then it's as much a true account of the day as any other part, so it's certainly reportage. But an image that works that way can puncture the 'hidden wall' between story and reader, so I would think carefully before using it in any layout. That's not to say I wouldn't give it to the client, but I might be less likely to pick it for the album. It's an interesting question about where to draw the line when people are camera aware and start acting for it. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. Ultimately, we're all there to make good pictures, and if the moment offers potential then it's a shame to waste it. I'd probably shoot it until it stopped being interesting and then wait until the editing stage to decide if I wanted to keep it. But I'd be very unlikely to provoke or encourage anything specific. And if people deliberately play to camera? I did once have a bride who was very photogenic and very camera aware. She knew her good side, and would frequently give me little staged moments in the expectation that I'd take them. I didn't. She noticed that I was neglecting these opportunities and was obviously worried that I didn't know what I was doing. To put her mind at rest (and make my job easier) I told her very firmly not to pose, and showed her some of the images I'd made when she was being natural. That's about the only time I've ever intervened.

davebell · October 30, 2009

Neil, from a fellow Londoner, this is an extremely well written article. But even more so, your reply to one of the questions above where you went into your ideas and methodology regarding street photography was very enlightening. I am motivated to hit the streets myself after reading your post....

picturesque · October 30, 2009

David B.--after you hit the streets, post your 8 storytelling images here for Neil to review. Anyone wanting to better his or herself doing reportage (PJ) wedding photography is crazy not to do the assignment. Even if you also do directed candids or traditional wedding photography...

This article will remain posted as a 'sticky' for at least 2 weeks--plenty of time to get your assignment going. When have you gotten genuine information such as this and access to an expert for free?

William Michael · October 30, 2009

Neil, thank you for your time responding in such detail to my assignment and also my questions.

Very valuable, indeed.

WW

picturesque · November 1, 2009

Another question, Neil. 'Romantics' of the couple are normally included in wedding photography coverage. In the US, or at least where I am, this session is done usually some time during the reception. The photographer normally takes the couple outside or away from the room where the guests are. Since this session is 'set up', one almost has to direct. How do you cover this type of image in a reportage situation?

neilambrose · November 2, 2009

Nadine, in honesty, 'romantics' of that sort are not something I do very often.

If a couple says they want lots of formals, and a set piece portrait session on their own, then what they're really saying is they want traditional style photography. Sometimes there are clients with a conflicted understanding of their aims from photography. They may start by saying 'we really prefer candids' but then spend most of the consultation talking about posed photos. When that happens I usually refer them to another photographer who specialises in that style.

However, quite often when we're hired for a reportage wedding there can be a suitable moment when the couple are alone naturally. If that happens, we shoot it with a more romantic treatment - long lenses to compress perspective, classic pictorialist composition, often printed in black and white. (The 'depth' section above has a couple of examples that were made this way). So we're not adverse to the idea in any aesthetic sense, just that it doesn't really fit with our business model if we position ourselves as reportage photographers and then start arranging posed sessions.

There's also the question of cultural differences which may play a part in the relative importance of portrait sessions. The timeline, organisation and expectations of a wedding in the UK are different from one in the US. The idea of a 3 hour pre-wedding shoot is unheard of, for example - the bride and groom typically never see each other on the wedding day before the ceremony, and the first time the family and guests meet is 15 minutes before the ceremony starts. Similarly, the concept of taking the couple to another location for posed photos doesn't work in the UK either; it's ceremony to reception by quickest route, normally.

david_schilling___chicago_ · November 2, 2009

Neil, Very helpful information.........thanks for taking the time and putting in all the effort that you have.

landscape_shooter · November 3, 2009

Thanks for taking the time to help others out. This was very interesting and changes the way I look at weddings now. Is this the way you started out shooting weddings? How do you deal with harsh outdoor lighting with bright sun or sun and harsh shadows, will you resort to flash often? Thanks again!

neilambrose · November 3, 2009

For reportage I prefer to use natural light, and tend to use flash only as a last resort.

If I'm able to move around I'll choose positions that work to my advantage as far as possible. Many contrast issues with bright sun and harsh shadows can be controlled just by changing what's in the frame, so I may pick my view to include light or shadow but not both. Otherwise, I may also shoot film more in bright conditions as it can be a lot more versatile than digital for high contrast scenes. Most colour print films are highly resistant to over-exposure, and it's possible to spot meter on one person standing in partial shade, and still retain highlights on an adjacent person in full sun. I tend to shoot film and digital side by side so deciding to use one or the other becomes a creative choice, not unlike deciding on a lens. In very bright light, and nearly always for formals because these tend to be shot head-on to camera, I use fill flash to lift the eyes as well as balance contrast. To answer your other question: I started out shooting reportage right from my first wedding. I already knew how to shoot documentary material (it was the basis of my non-wedding work for several years) so I just adapted my preferred style to fit. Thanks for the questions.

Sign In

MASTER LESSON: Reportage Wedding Photography

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in