Photograph by the Numbers

Looking at Sam's NYC wedding photos, http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-

and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Dfjz, a thought struck me, which happens

from time to time.

 

Remember those oil painting kits, "Paint by the Numbers?" Well, I

think that many of us "Photograph by the Numbers." In other words,

we use formulas that we repeat over and over again at each wedding

with some variations. Granted, many of you are technically better

than others, but the patterns remain. I was once told by another

photographer that even schools like Brooks will teach their students

formulas for photographing various events that work every time.

 

This gives the photographer some sense of security.

 

This is even true of PJ photography which tends to picture little

bits and pieces like bows and shoes and hand holding and backs of

heads, but nothing really radical. It still follows a formula. Even

tilts and cross-processings and PS magic and motion effects follows

formulas and is repeated over and over again.

 

I've seen some not-so-famous photos by Denis Reggie, and they really

don't look much different than what many of us do.

 

One responder to Sam's NYC wedding photo thread said she carried a

Holga, but never dared to take it out.

 

Is that problem one of expectations? "Oh, What will they think of

me if I use a Holga or an old Yashica A?" I've been there, and

my "special" cameras remain in my bag!

 

I also think that most clients have expectations of what we are to

do to earn our fee, and many of the questions on this forum are

indirectly asking for the secrets of these magic formulas.

 

With Sam's NYC wedding photos, there were no real expectations and,

evidently the couple was open to anything. He used the equipment he

thought would fit the moment, and produced some very off beat photos.

 

I'm not sure his style would work as a paid (pro) business

technique. What he does is more of an art than than a business

formula.

 

I'm wondering if this formula theory is correct. Do we follow a

formula, and, how do we free ourselves from the formula without

jeopardizing our business?

 

Any thoughts?

Even modern PJ style weddings are not the forum for 'pushing the envelope' type art. The idea of shooting a wedding is to capture the day and to make the B&G look as good as possible. I also subscribe to the view that the most important thing is to have a choice of great photos of the bride, and ditto the B&G, so they have something to put on the wall if all else were to fail. In that, there is a limit to how far one can go before the wedding stops becoming a record of the day and starts becoming the photographers art fancies.

 

So I say, yes, be innovative, be daring, but not at the expense of deviating from the job, i.e. to capture the wedding day for prosperity. So do the cool stuff, but also do all the rest that to us photographers may seem rather monotonous because they still want the cake shot, eventhough you do it, with minor variations at every wedding.

 

As a matter of interest, in what fields of photography is there such a scope for new and original material each time, certainly not in any commercial fields (I include any job which has a customer). Landscape photography isn't particularly innovative either. I would guess that almost every photo is cliche to some field of photography, just as there is very little truly original music still being created.

We absolutely follow a formula and when we don't adhere to that formula, sometimes we

are reemed by our fellow photographers for not doing so.

 

<p>Case in point is when I put up my series of shots from an engagement shoot that I did

for a couple who were looking for Asian-style love movies (i.e. In the Mood for Love) which

you can see here: <a href="http://www.jeremyparkerphotography.com/?

p=0&s=10">Engagement Shots</a>.

 

<p>People who looked at them either loved them or hated them. I was even told by some

that there is no way I can consider these shots "engagement shots" since they basically

didn't fit into their view of what an engagement shot was.

 

<p>That's why I posed the question on the other thread... I wanted to know why these

shots which didn't follow the rules can be loved for breaking them but others are hated for

doing so...

Jeremy,

 

Your example is what I'm talking about.

 

I've mentioned this before but it is relevant here:

 

When I worked for a studio I photographed a Vietnamese wedding. I know by previous experience that for Asian brides they must have photos with everyone at the event. That did not follow the studio formula..."as few photos as possible"..."only photograph what sells."

 

However, the studio would not accept the fact that every photo I took of the bride and groom with the family would sell. i took them anyway. I was reamed!

 

However, eventually I learned that my forbidden photos were bought by the bride and groom for $9000 (none of which i saw as a commission!)

 

A photography formula will give a usable sequence of event images, but there are exceptions?

 

That's what I'm exploring. Where do we follow the formula and where do we deviate?

Jeremy,

 

Sorry for not mentioning your photos.

 

Interesting that they are also of an Asian couple.

 

For those of us in the USA or other Western regions, are we limiting our forumlas which excludes other traditions, or, as with Sam (SLIU) artistic intrepretations that may not fit the Western Anglo formula for a traditional wedding?

Jeremy - sorry, but I saw the thread of your engagement shoot a few days after the fact and did not comment: those that did not like them are clearly trapped in "the box." I thought they were phenomenal!! The very notion that you took the shoot to a new level puts it in a new dimension. It inspired me for a wedding shot I'll add at the end of this post.

 

Todd - I think your idea of wedding photography being compared to "paint by numbers" (ACK!) is not entirely accurate. I see why you would say that, given your Denis Reggie reference, but I would actually say the weddings themselves are paint by number. I think a bride would be mortified if Denis Reggie did not follow-through with a handful of traditional shots, especially at his price.

 

Every bride tells us that they "do things different." And while each wedding is different, most (western weddings) are essentially the same. Checklists include cake cutting and exchanging of the rings. Paint-by-number is not because it is the photography, but because it's in all (hyperbole translation: most) weddings.

 

The variables at weddings that keep them different is the people and the venues (again, hyperbole translation: for the most part). The cynical part of me observes the "giving away of the bride" and ponders: why hasn't this ritual gotten caught up in political correctness? Would Barbara Boxer ever use the term "giving away the bride?"

 

I for one am grateful for the "paint by number" or "cookie cutter" wedding. As long as there's a cake cutting, or a ring exchange, or a giving away the bride, I have a chance at shooting that wedding. If it's somebody so radical that the wedding will be held on a city bus during lunch break without a unity candle, they may be radical enough to have it captured by an stenographer instead of a photographer.

 

(FYI: I have shot weddings without a ring exchange or cake cutting, but never with Barbara Boxer giving away the bride)<div></div>

Todd I like your thoughts on this and pretty much agree with you. People in general must need formulas and sameness, every chain store in the nation is set up exactly the same from town to town. We are a formula nation. But not me.

If thousands of phtographers are all trying hundreds of ways to be creative or recreative or new or different and yet most anything appears similar or the same maybe it is the ceremony and culture itself that is at fault.

 

Remember most of these ceremonies are largely traditional with only minor variations. Unless its a deep sea diver wedding or a sky diving ceremony AND even those are simply environments in which the traditional ritual occurs.

 

Maybe we need to respect that ceremony for being unwavering and undaunted by time. People must want their marriage to be like that too. Maybe the art that is or the art that we want to be in our wedding photography is nothing more than how we heighten our intuitiveness. Cameras, flashes,and Lumispheres become even greater extensions of our eyes and minds not to make things look so different BUT MAYBE to make that wedding look more as it is rather than what it should be.

 

Remember the BASF Chemical commercials? We don't make the skis - we make the skis stronger. The art may simply be making the bride LOOK as happy as she intrinsicaly might be. Make the groom LOOK as proud and as he feels inside.

 

Good wedding photography might just be finding the instant when what is showing on some ones face or in their actions is directly proportional to what they are feeling inside. So does it matter that we make bouquets drip off the edge of an alter or drag a shutter for that Star Wars look? Some of that is cool.

 

I think if you could make each bride laugh and/or cry with every set of proofs you are then an artist.

Todd & Jon - Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you liked them! I've come to the

realization that we're all here to please our customers. Sometimes you're blessed with

customers who do think outside the box. When you are given this type of couple, I think you

should run with it.

 

Jon, I love your shot! The furniture, posing, and setting are perfect as well. Great job!

If I came close on that I may as well sell my gear and find a fishing forum. How the heck could I live up to that?

" ... how do we free ourselves from the formula without jeopardizing our business?"

 

By being vigilant with-in the formula.

 

For me that means honing your instincts to see the split second when something

personifies what is actually happening, less than trying to impose "creativity" on what's

happening by manipulating it.

 

The exception to this may be the standard shots like cake cutting etc. Those are already

manipulated by tradition. So, doing something as simple as gathering a crowd around the

B&G can lead to those unexpected moments... which you have to be ready for, because

they'll come and go in a nano second.

 

For me, this is the essence of still photography, including those taken at a weddings. One

tiny fraction of a second, frozen in time (i.e., The Decisive Moment). Get consistent at

that, and questions about being creative or not dissolve away. Each wedding becomes a

totally new "creative" experience, despite the routine set of traditional events at each.

 

To develop this instinct isn't easy, and some say you have it or you don't. But were I asked

to help someone get there, my first suggestion would be to stop looking at wedding

images and start looking at the works which personify the notion of capturing humanity at

it's most interesting moments.

 

This approach (not the only one for sure), rarely creates conflict between client needs and

expectations, and the photographer's desire to be creative. So it has little to no impact on

business. The images are of the client's being themselves, at their wedding, with their

friends and family also being themselves. The trick is to become more aware of them, and

less aware of yourself.<div></div>

A couple of thoughts...

 

If shooting unconventional stuff or using an offbeat camera like the Holga doesn't distract from shooting the standards, no harm done. It's just another flavor to offer the couple.

 

If you were hired on the basis of your website or portfolio that clearly illustrates an offbeat, unconventional style, well... that's what they should expect to get. Otherwise they should have hired someone else.

I just had an image of me saying to my assistant, "It's time for the Big Gun. Fetch my Holga" and having her present it to me on a satin pillow.

 

I just had another thought. I'm doing an engagement shoot this weekend. I'm gonna pack my Holga.

 

Thanks Todd!

Just for grins I brought one of my Contax cameras to a recent wedding and captured images with a roll of slide film. Then I cross processed it in C41 chemistry and the client loves the images.

 

If you want to take a peek just go to my web site and click the link, "To View Your Pictures Click Here." Then go to the Petrucci/Gartner wedding, log on with your E mail and makeup your own password and cruise thru the category "Arty Images."

 

Thought you may want to see them as this cross processing produces different results.

 

Enjoy.

bill- like the Xprocess...but they look really overexposed. are you supposed to overexpose when you xprocess? or expose normally? just a question. were you happy w/ the way they turned out?

Conrad,

 

Good observation. I haven't done this for quite sometime. The images may be slightly incorrect exposure. I'll have to play around with this to see what looks appropriate. This is slide film (E100) that I processed in negative chemistry. The client loved them however, I'm still working on my game pan as perhaps some is because of the scanning.

 

I'm 100% digital with film only in a camera because I still enjoy using it. I'll keep working on this as it is something different.

 

Thank You for your comments. I appreciate your observations and thoughts.

Remember this is slide film developed in C-41 (negative) chemistry. They look weird anyway!

Mark,

 

I could only find green satin. Hope that's Ok.

 

This is my modified Holga with waist level finder (taken from an old Kodak Target camera) made by Randy smith:

 

HolgaMod Waist level site: http://www.holgamods.com/holgaswl/holgaswl.html

 

HolgaMod Waist Level Gallery:

 

http://www.holgamods.com/holgaswl/wlgallery/wlgallery.html

 

HolgaMod Home page: http://www.holgamods.com/

 

The velcro straps on the sides keep the back from falling off! (^O^)<div></div>

Todd, wouldn't a Russian Lubatel TLR look much more "pro" for a wedding shooter? Biggest problems with them are that at about f/11 the lens is looking almost sharp, and if you drop it on a hard floor the plastic back is likely to break in half. No big problem though. Mine was epoxied back together twenty or so years ago and is still good as "new" ;-)

Al,

 

I just purchased an antique gray leather Yashica A from a photo.net member. That might upgrade my equipment a bit! Hope to have it next week.

 

I truly enjoy waist level photography. That is one really nice thing about the Olympus E-10...it has a movable monitor which allows waist level viewing.

 

Today I decided to send you some of my b/w Holga photos, until I get around to doing some serious 4x5 contact printing. They will be digital prints, but will be printed on true art watercolor paper. The only photo I have hanging on my office wall is a 4x4" Holga image on watercolor paper and it hasn't faded a touch in 2 years. I think you'll like these.

 

When I get the Yashica A, I'll share my experiences.

 

Many people think I'm obsessed with digital. That is so wrong! (^O^)

...yeah, sure Todd. You're just waiting on a price-drop for the Holga digital back! :o)

Jon...hush-up! The Holga digital is a secret. Actually, I hear that there are lens adapters in the works so we can put the Holga lens on our DSLRs. The only problem with that is we'll lose the light-leak factor!

Todd, Wedding photographers shoot "by numbers" mainly because their clients expect to view their pics "by numbers".

I think it's human nature to follow formulas, to make things less chaotic and a bit

easier to manage, and with wedding photography even more so since the event

typically travels a formulaic path steeped in tradition -- preparation, ceremony,

reception.

 

On the one hand I suppose this might be seen as endlessly repetitious, generating

endlessly repetitious setups and approaches and lord knows, there's no escaping the

cake cutting and the garter removal.

 

But on the other, within the framework-- like blues music--I think there's an endless

and open opportunity to create fresh and meaningful photographs if we allow

ourselves to work in the moment and really pay attention to our surroundings. To not

fall back on the point of view we've used 50 times before, or concepts of coverage

and multiple angles to make sure the proof book is full, but to really observe and

react.

 

I think that this is the most difficult thing to accomplish but where the greatest

satisfaction, and best pictures come from. And no, I don't always get it right and beat

myself up when I catch myself falling into a pattern.<div></div>

Hello all...I'm a new member and found this topic personally relevant:

 

I haven't been photographing weddings for very long and have already found myself feeling bored and uncreative. But weddings typically are, well, typical! Personally, I love the PJ-style weddings. B&G's who choose this style are generally willing to give more creative license; but I've found that even most "classic" B&Gs are more than happy to allow me to add some not-so-classic "poses" to the mix. However, no matter how bored we feel or how "paint by number" we think the wedding photography is, we just need to remember one thing: It's ALL NEW for the bride and groom! My goal at a wedding is just to meet or exceed their expectations in capturing their special day!