Photojournalism – Wedding Photojournalism – Journalism

William Michael · July 7, 2010

Prompted by this thread: <a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00WfVp">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00WfVp</a>

1. Preface

A Journalist creates a Journal, usually for others to view. It could be a Story or a Narrative based upon the facts. It could be Reportage of the Facts. It could be an Insight or an Unfolding of the Facts by Interaction or Interview.

All these are Journalism.

It is important to understand (or define) exactly what TYPE of Journalism one is undertaking and arguably a large part this is definition is by: End Product; the Audience; and perhaps most importantly the Audience’s Expectation of the End Product.

For example, a Police Officer’s Journal will attend to the Facts and by its nature will be: “subject – verb - object” and in simple sentences: “It was raining. It was 11 o’clock. We arrived. The Suspect had a knife in his left hand.”

However, the Reportage (Journalism) of that story in the Newspaper very likely will have some licence: “Police have taken into custody a man who was armed with a knife.”

Although it has not yet been established that the man was ARMED with a knife: he had a knife in his hand is a fact – a knife by its state of being is not a weapon – but it can be used as a weapon, as can a baseball bat, or even an open hand be a weapon and one can be “armed” with any of these.

At this elemental stage, we see a prostitution of the purity of “Journalism”: should we sack the newspaper Journalist and publically flog the Editor in Chief for printing this story?

It would be argued (by most sensible people) that in the main, Police would not have arrested a suspect who was carrying a knife, unless they (the Police) believed that he was up to some mischief – so hence the “Journalist” is allowed (by most of Society) to take the liberty of using the word “armed”, even though it is incorrect and NOT a reportage of the FACTS.

It could be argued that Society expects / assumes that the actions of the Newspaper Journalist in this scenario will not prejudice the Trial of the Accused. Maybe so, maybe not – but that is not the point which is being made by the example: the point is there are very few occasions of Pure Journalism - even when Journalism appears to be pure; when dissected often, it is not.

So to argue any definition of Journalism or comparisons of Journals, on premise of the Purity of Journalism, is a nonsense and ignorance at best or just plain self serving Elitism, at worst . . .

<ol>

<li>2. Application to Photojournalism.</li>

</ol>

There is no way on this earth that BIAS does not encroach into EVERY Shutter Execution which EVERY Photographer releases. One example closest to Pure Journalism would be in the Frames of a Security Camera at a Mall.

Now, having delivered similar to this commentary before and to Audiences of Photographers, the Author knows this is the part where most Photographer’s knickers get quite twisted: fair warning there is more twisting to come.

Intrinsically, the Photographer is an element in the image’s making and by definition has influence on it – the points which need to be articulated and understood are: what influence; and to what degree.

There is an elitist attitude of some of the now ever-so-common “Wedding Photo Journalists” which proffers the purity of their coverage. Usually it only takes a small scrape to find evidence of the opposite. But these Practitioners are usually most sincere in their assertions and the belief in the purity of both their work as Journalists and the purity of their Final Product as Journalism. In some cases: nothing could be further from the truth.

Firstly we need to get our head around the fact that there are a series of discreet and individual decisions for each shutter release; a Photograph captures only ONE moment in time.

Moving forward with examples - if the “Photojournalist” captures the Bride crying as the Groom slips the Ring on her finger, then that is a discrete decision to execute that particular capture; and unless the Camera’s Viewpoint allows for the capture of the Groom’s Mother to be in the same shot, then inevitably and by virtue of the decision (editing) made at source by the Photographer, the reaction of the Groom’s Mother at that point in time is forever lost from that Journal.

The example is severe and we can toss the debate back and forth: arguing that one could swing around and get the capture of the Mum a split second later and etc . . . but if we want really bare all and talk constructively - we all know that when we are driving a camera WE make decisions as to WHAT we shoot – and we all know that we CANNOT recapture any moment in time – ergo by definition we Photographers are: Sub Editors, at the source.

Already this does not bode well for the purity of our “Photojournalism”

And further . . .

When the Photojournalist finishes and downloads the files and EDITS – she herself is then playing Editor in Chief of HIS OWN already sub-edited version of the event.

Where is the Journalistic Scrutiny in this workflow?

It is merely Bias, upon Bias.

“I am a Professional Photojournalist and I edit all my own work to ensure the highest Artistic Standards” . . . Hmm ? ? ?

So let’s view it as it actually is. Let’s define “Photojournalism” by Outputs; The Journal’s Audience; and the Audience’s Expectations.

Addressing Outputs:

The final Product of the Wedding Photographer is the output. What defines it? More importantly how is that definition derived?

The Artist will offer a Product based upon Style and Uniqueness and other similar elements and to a greater or lesser degree it will be defined by those elements.

The Journalist is a minimalist apropos tools – arguably a Leica, a fast 35mm lens and truck loads of 800ASA film and the determination to infiltrate, at any cost, will suffice.

But between those two, there could be a definition of a Wedding Photojournalist.

It would likely be a minimalist apropos tools. It would be one who does infiltrate, perhaps with more stealth than overt behaviour, but perhaps it would be one who would deny the shot to maintain the harmony of the Occasion.

But this Wedding Photojournalist would have some story teller viewpoint and would therefore affect the outcome with some nuance of style: not overpowering, but rather like a how a Parent might take a simple Nursery Rhyme like Humpty Dumpty and not change the words but give flavour with intonation and tone.

Addressing The Audience:

There is not one.

There are many.

The main Audience is the Bride and Groom (usually) – although not always. So it is logical that the Journal addresses in the main, that Audience.

How many Wedding Photojournalists know their Audience? Would it be a reasonable assumption that each Couple might desire an individual Journal – beyond the individuality of the Subject matter?

Then there are the Sub-Audiences: how much of the Journal will cater for them? The Mothers and the Fathers; the Grandparents and Aunt Mary who made the Cake . . .

Is the Wedding Photojournalist aware that Maiden Aunt Mary made the Cake – and that this is the moment of HER 15 minutes of fame? How much Research did the Wedding PhotoJournalist do before going out to compose this journal?

Addressing the Audience’s Expectations:

Succinctly put - addressing the Audiences expectations is NOT showing them images of previous events of other people in personal and emotive situations and getting the nod from them that “these are the type of photos we like”.

Journalism is deeper than that.

<ol>

</ol>

I am a PHOTOGRAPHER – I capture moments in time. I make a Journal: sometimes very short, sometimes very long. Each journal, be it a single standalone shot or a Wedding Coverage of 200 images, has a part of me in it.

I do NOT term myself a Wedding Photojournalist. I am a Photographer. When I am employed by a Bride and Groom, I do create their Journal. I research. I attempt to understand the Client. I involve myself to a point, but at the gig, I am the Silent Interviewer and sometimes the suggestion maker, by action or voice.

Is this a description of True and Pure Journalism in regard to output?

Yes it is, for the conditions of Weddings, Parties and other Social Events.

Does this definition of me and my work address the Audience?

Yes it does – moreover it addresses the fact the each Journal’s Audience is different: one Slipper does not fit all.

Does this description of me address the Audience’s Expectations?

Yes. Because I seek to create Rapport, Dialogue and Understanding

Does this definition and description of my work conform to some rules and regulations of a Photography Society or Professional Association?

I don’t know.

More importantly: I don’t care.

The Journal is between my Clients and me.

<ol>

<li>4. Journalism ? ? ? : Examples</li>

</ol>

4a. An Eightieth Birthday

The Birthday Woman is with her eldest Son as she makes her Speech: a semi-Formal Affair, the man is ruddy in the face that is the correct skin tone – he is a Business man, rugged and successful, yet there is soft internal communication from him to his Mother as she thanks her friends and family. This is the shot they choose for the Living-room mantle-shelf. It is not overly “Artistic” but is a clean capture of a choice and moving moment in time, for the family. The Son hosted the Surprise party for his Mother. It did not take much research to know that this (or something like it) would be one killer shot of the day.

Is this shot ‘Photojournalism” or is it a simple candid capture, a snapshot?

Most likely the many of the W&P fraternity will see such an image as a nice snapshot - if it were more “artistic” and less pedestrian in composition and elegance and less reliant upon the (premeditated) moment of shutter release, would it be more “Photojournalistic”?

Perhaps it would be determined more Photojournalistic if it were more “creative”: but perhaps some “Photojournalism” forgets the simple things the CLIENT might want to read in THIER Journal and dictates and generates more artistry in the name of Journalism.

When the Photographer was packing up, the host had changed into more casual attire and was enjoying a Scotch. The Photographer caught this and it was given to his wife as a gift: an Irish Woman and a Woman of insight – she loved it: “that is ‘Sooo him’, when he is relaxed. He is very rarely relaxed, you have caught him with his guard down, he must trust you”, she said: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/11236770">http://www.photo.net/photo/11236770</a> The image was captured with a Powershot P5 IS – a very basic tool. The Photographer usually carries this camera in his pocket – the DSLR’s were packed away.

4b .A 21st Birthday Party

The 21st Birthday Party was entirely a different Kettle of Kippers: the Mother was outrageously artistic and the Dad was a closet Actor with an huge passion for controlling everything. It was the Son’s 21st and there was one other sibling – a Girl 19 years old. The family are all close nit and all intellectual. They wanted “artistic” shots - everyone was required to dress up: the Photographer did also.

There are three captures which illustrates another point: The first is Dad telling Son about his love for him – all macho stuff with laughs: the word love is not mentioned; the second is the emotional shot as they embrace.

What is there is for the Photographer to do to, but to be in position and to pull those two shots on time?

But the image the family cried over was neither, but was rather the later cut away shot of the Daughter / Sister after watching the interaction between the Son and Dad.

Are these three captures as described, “Photojournalism” ?

Well likely yes the first two would pass muster under the strict rules and regulations of association and scrutiny of the Wedding Photojournalist – perhaps because they were captured on a tilt, even more-so?

But the most true intimate capture for the Journal is of the Sister – is the last image . . . the Brother chooses it too as more meaningful than either of the other two. The Meaning of the Journal (the conveyance of “the love displayed on the occasion”) was better expressed by the last image of the Sister – all the Family responded to it, emotionally.

Perhaps it is good to neither negate the Secondary Audience, nor the Secondary Players in the Journal.

But there is more: . . . When the Sister asks for a shot with her Friend - Friend acts unsure. The Photographer has developed rapport with Sister. Sister says to Friend “Bill is cool”. Photographer touches Sister on shoulder and says ”well I do really think you two Girls need to get in a bit tighter with each other and I love that hat, but I we do need to tilt it a bit to get those beautiful eyes banging into my lens” and The Photographer continues with something like, “now if you both look close enough, you should be looking into each other’s eyes in the reflection of my lens – that made them both smile – and broke the ice, of Friend.

Is that a trait of Journalism? Is that Professional Journalism, to act quickly and decisively to put an interviewee, at ease to ensure a true Picture of Events at that moment in time?

Would the result be judged “Photojournalism”?

Most “Photojournalists” would look casually at it and see a posed shot two girls, dressed up at a party, nothing more.

The point is the Journal makes more sense when the Background Story is known - and often the Journal’s audience is not the w.w.web. Certainly there are very few Weddings, whose Journal’s Audience is the wwweb. Perhaps fewer 21st Birthday Celebrations.

“Photojournalists” have no business whatsoever judging what Journalism is, or is not, when that Journalism pertains to an Audience, of which they are neither Members nor of which they are privy to the Research thereof.

4c. Connection with the Photographer – Alignment by the Subject – Empathy by the Photographer – Third Eye View.

The Photographer uses “Third Eye View”: the camera is the third eye used to capture the interaction between the Subject and the Photographer.

A Simple Scenario, A restaurant. Sunday Lunch on Mother’s Day. This Subject is about the same age as the Photographer. The Subject has a three year old. The Photographer has two Children – one 12 and one grown up . . . Across the room the Photographer catches a glimpse of his child asleep, the camera is lifted and shown . . . the Subject responds favourably . . . the rest is here: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/11236771">http://www.photo.net/photo/11236771</a>

This image was taken with a P5IS.

Is this “Photojournalism”?

Did the Photographer break some major rule, by engaging the Subject?

There is no rule which say the Photographer cannot be involved in the Journal in the moment of time the shutter is released.

The concept that Photojournalists MUST dress in Black and lurk in shadows with a 70 to 200 mounted is laughable.

When DRESS CODE or TELEPHOTO ZOOM LENSES become the defining element of “Photojournalism” it is sickening.

4d.The Wedding as an Example:

Arriving at the Bride’s home the Photographer had, (at the meeting previous), been asked to capture a series of Getting Ready images. These were to be for the Bride and Groom’s Private Journal.

Does the fact that these more intimate captures are to be excluded from the final Preview Viewing (or Preview Album or Preview Web Page) mean that the definition of Wedding Photojournalistic Coverage is called into question?

No it does not – there is just a sub-Journal created – it being a branch of the main story.

During this part of the Coverage, upon entering the Bride’s Bedroom there, was a casual comment made to the Bride about the beautiful window light falling “this way” – and the Photographer positioned himself to make the most advantage of that window light – and the background, such that Flash Fill was to be most subtle.

Does such a casual mention and premeditated camera viewpoint selection, disqualify the coverage as “photojournalistic”?

No - it does not.

During the “Getting Ready” shots the Photographer pulled a series of three shots into the mirror of the Bride attending to her Eye Make-up.

From a Photographic (artistic?) viewpoint, sometimes these images “work” and sometimes they do not, because the expression on the face of the Subject is sometimes too severe, concentrating, not relaxed – yet as an example of Journalism, such a series is: true.

The Photographer pondered about including for the Client’s viewing, this particular image with the strange facial expression: based solely on that tense expression. But, having experience with Client’s reactions and also pondering his own editorial control limits, he did include the image.

The Groom loved it, though the Bride was not swept off her feet.

Morals to the story: there are Several Audiences to the Journal.

Who really has “Editorial Rights” and how far do those rights extend?

But there is more on this particular image.

The Groom was an artist of sorts and requested the capture as a stand-alone image as it was a picture, in his words “just as ‘Jane’ makes a face in the mirror” (his quote - name changed). So it was NOT to be part of The Story.

Further, the Groom suggested / requested that it be made more “moody”: the result was a subtle de-saturation of tone and colour – the Groom was happy with that.

Does this intervention, manipulation and selection of one particular image by the Client, render that image less Photojournalistic?

No, it does not. It just makes that very small Journal, of one image, much more personal, for the owner.

4e. Collegiate Work

The Photographer sometimes works with a Female Colleague. She works hard and is focussed and there is Rapport between these two Photographers. She is physically large has a bubbly over the top personality to match. Her mode of dress is an indication of her personality and because of this (dress mode and personality) the Photographer chooses for which Clients, Venues and Weddings he will engage this particular Woman as his Assistant Photographer: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10963062">http://www.photo.net/photo/10963062</a>

Does this decision to employ or not employ a second Photographer compromise the Journalism Coverage of the Event?

Arguably two shooting will greatly increase the useable material for The Story and it will be gathered from different angles and can be simultaneously shot during key moments, if necessary. Many Wedding Photojournalists will advertise their coverage is ‘more complete’, because they use a second Photographer.

On the other hand, does a premeditated decision NOT to engage this particular Photographer because of her personality and manner of dress inherently dilute the Photojournalism of another Wedding determined to be more austere, or solemn in nature?

A key question is:

Should the Wedding Photojournalist have any preconception, however mild, of the tone and timbre of the event and should any editorial decisions encompassing Equipment or Assistance be predicated upon those assumptions?

How would Robert Capa photograph a Wedding?

<ol>

<li>5. Weddings . . . what is driving whom . . . and who is selling what . . . and when the dust settles is it still a service industry or a self-serving, self service industry?</li>

</ol>

My Mother had her Wedding documented formally by Monte Luke Studios – i.e. AFTER the Wedding AND the HONEYMOON they (all the Wedding Party) had the Formal Studio shots done.

At the Wedding, she had similarly, just as well known a Photographer, (of that era), document her Wedding Day.

He used a TLR and 400ASA B&W film. Though it might be argued that the phrase: “Wedding Photojournalism”, was coined by someone only a few years ago – the technique was rampant down here, long before that. For what it is worth, so was the technique of Candid Capture using: ”The Hip Shot”.

I am not sure what drove my Mother to have such an extensive Wedding Coverage; also including the additional “Press Photographer” (from the Newspaper), to ensure they had a photo in the Social Pages of the Sunday Paper. I understand one paid for that in those days – but I am sure that she was not dictated to by Fashion Magazine Columnists telling her that she needed a Wedding Photojournalist . . . and to ensure he had “this and that” in his camera bag.

I am sure my Mother engaged Photographers and she knew exactly what she would be getting as Product – and so did they.

I suspect that it was her own love of Photography and her own Artistic Nature (she was a Dress Designer), that drove her to be a little different, for the time.

I suspect also that her “Artistic” cohort encouraged her: her younger Sister was a dancer and won Australian Ballroom Title – twice: she too has a love of Photography. Her Matron of Honour – her Brother’s Girlfriend - became an established Oil Painter and her, (MoH’s), Father was a well known Composer and Conductor of Dance and Radio Show Bands, of the day. It was an era where “the Arts” overlapped considerably; the network was tight and Sydney, as a City, was quite a small populous by today’s standards – even though it was, and still is, the largest City in Australia.

So the point is, this Client went out and sought the Photographers (plural) and I dare say had some detailed input into what she wanted . . . I suppose it is the same now?

The typical Bride spends a few hours surfing the WWW and makes decisions based upon a few pretty images, reading the “About Me” and scores a Photographer like Sean Peele, because he is very experienced – and a good price. . . and he fits all the criteria and “must haves” as noted on: <a href="http://www.everythingyouneedtoknowaboutyourweddingday.com/">www.everythingyouneedtoknowaboutyourweddingday.com</a>

Hmm? I feel sick.

I should feel sick because that was sarcasm, but often it is true: all too true.

So that covers the “Responsibility of the Client“

But what about the: Responsibility of the Wedding Photojournalist?

Oops beg pardon - I forgot: the Wedding Photojournalist has the responsibility to turn up wearing Black and “Photo-journalise” – that’s what they do – isn’t it?

I feel sicker. Well I should feel sicker, because that too is sarcasm and also, sometimes: all too true.

<ol>

<li>6. Service Industry? ? ? – Who is paying Whom, and for What? </li>

</ol>

This is not to say that some Brides and Grooms do request, do want, a Photographic coverage which is predominately, even exclusively Narrative or Reportage in content and in structure.

But firstly let’s establish what the Bride and Groom really want – we owe that to our customers: many come armed with words they parrot off to us – not even defining what the words mean.

Secondly let’s establish that we can deliver what they what and that these deliverables are tailored to their Journal and to them, as the Audience of that Journal.

Thirdly let’s ensure we can deliver exactly, or close to what they EXPECT.

It is a fine line between, “I cover Weddings in a Journalistic Style, this is how I do that, is that what you want?” and “I am an Artiste and I make a lot of money selling these Wedding Journalism images that you really need; and you need mine - because I am famous.”

Let us not assume that such is pure Journalise or even approaching it - it is not – and let’s not get tied down in defining what Journalism is or isn’t and the semantics of it but rather ensure whatever it is we are supplying: is what our customers are expecting.

Each shutter click is a subeditorial decision to provide part of the final Narrative. By definition, each is record and final story of the event is an interpretation by the Photographer – no matter how removed and how skilful in remaining objective in response to each increment which is captured.

These individual images are the elements which meld to tell the story, to make the Journal: but there are only the images the Photographer has captured are the images from which he can choose.

The Photographer cannot re-visit her notes; re-interview the witness;-re-play the tape to re-evaluate the nuance in tone of the voice; re-do the research; or gather more supporting evidence . . . Wedding Photojournalism is unique in this fashion and it demands a unique definition and interpretation and understanding and explanation.

So let’s be realistic: Wedding Photojournalism is a special class of Photojournalism and Photojournalism at best approaches a meagre semblance of what Pure Journalism actually is – it is the essence of the Photograph that it is: a moment in time.

In one respect, each element of the Photojournalist – each single (unadulterated) image is – is Pure Journalism, albeit accepted that the decision to capture that moment will have bias.

The Essence of the Image being said Moment; the Bias to capture that Moment and not another, does not demean the Journalistic Content of the Image or lessen the act of Journalism, which executes the capture.

This Wedding Photojournalism, merely requires a unique definition, or perhaps more importantly an understanding that the definition needs to be flexible enough to conform to and generally be defined by:

Each Execution of the Photographer, being in concert with the Expectations of the Journal and its Final Owner.

Broader Journalism – to make “The Journal” - in its pure form, must draw on Research, The Event, Supportive Material and Review.

The Wedding Photographer only has: Research; and The Event.

It is arguable that some Photojournalists do not feed on Research, and some are so involved in Artistic Endeavours or are unskilled as technicians - or both - that often they miss much of The Event: some recluse, armed with 3000 images, for 6 weeks into the digital darkroom to “create”.

Hmm ? ? ? I feel even sicker.

<ol>

<li>7. Throwing Stones:</li>

</ol>

If you have read this far; if you are a Wedding Photographer - then it is very likely that you have some emotion in your gut.

I hope so.

The emotion could very well be anger. For example if: you wear All Black to Weddings; or take 3000 images; or labour over a computer for six weeks in post production - then it is likely that you think the Author is a Grumpy Old Fart and is taking a few cheap swipes.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Getting down to bare bones and personal, I neither single out any particular Practitioner nor Practice contained within the Members of Photo.net nor any Wedding Photographer, generally or specifically.

It is obvious to my colleagues here, whom I hold in high esteem – who each, they are.

Many of my Colleagues, whom I hold in esteem, tout “Photo-Journalism” as their credo. There are many more Photographers here and elsewhere, whose work with which I am totally unfamiliar and whose work would be of an high standard and who would serve their Clients most professionally: of that I am assured.

This commentary is dotted with examples and scenarios, mostly extremes: purposefully.

Purposefully written so, to stimulate emotion, within the audience, but also the examples serve to clearly articulate situations and to pose questions using scenarios with which most Wedding Photographers and many Folk in general, would be familiar.

The Audience is challenged to use that emotion to look at what they do and how they present what they do to their Prospects and Clients; to define what their Wedding Journals contain; to ensure that the contents are in accord with their Client’s Understandings and Expectations.

Comparatively, far too much talking on this topic is done between Photographers at Association Meetings and on Forums: rather there should be meaningful, face to face Rapport Building, prior to A Wedding Shoot: too little time is spent engaging with the Clients – they are Final Owners of the Wedding Journal.

The Wedding Photographer’s: Marketing; Advertising; and Booking Facilities, have changed so dramatically over the past ten years. Also, Wedding Photography can be at the mercy of the many internet “What The New Bride needs to know” experts. It is now even more fundamental that the Client and Photographer are on the same page, apropos Definitions and Expectations.

Definition and Client Confirmation of Expectation is NOT the Prospect merely reading the “About Me” page:

“William has taken Wedding Photography to a new height extending his thirty years experience and Journalistic Capture and integrating those with Award Winning Artistic Merit, to ensure your Wedding Day will be captured without intrusion in the purest of Photo-Journalistic Style”

Shakespeare: “To thine own self be true” – maybe a good start.

I would take Shakespeare a step further: - “to thine own self be true . . . and then wear it as a Placard.”

Clearly Display and Articulate: such that Prospects know exactly what your Truth, is.

Businesses will grow from truth and the clear articulation of it: because ultimately Wedding Photography is a Service Industry, though it seems not so, in so many cases.

Service is predicated on Truth and Clear Articulation.

Service is predicated on knowing the Customer’s Needs and then providing the Customer with what THEY expect, and also knowing that Prospects, at the outset, often have difficulty articulating what it is, they Need and Expect.

William W. - Photographer

Post Script: Incidentally apropos definitions the above is also “Journalism”

It is an Opinion Piece or Editorial, on a particular topic.

Yet another type of “Journalism”.

jtk · July 7, 2010

That is an incredibly long "opinion piece." Congratulations.

Me, yes, I'm an elitist: Journalism has to do with un-staged events, distinctly does not have to do with weddings or other entertainments that photographers are paid to romanticize (ie lie about...they avoid the rough spots and they retouch the acne).

If a real journalist was to photograph a wedding we might learn something. A wedding photographer puts sugar frosting on a larded-up soap opera...there is no "truth" in that work, and the customer doesn't want it. The customer would buy the photography from Walmart if Walmart offered it. In fact, that's where the last of the film gets processed :-)

fotografz · July 7, 2010

William, to paraphrase Shakespeare: "Me thinks thou doth protest too much"

IMO, rather than a literal definition, Photojournalism, as it applies to making pictures at a wedding, is "common usage" to distinguish from images that are purposefully staged, planned, posed or otherwise constructed for the purpose of illustration ... by the maker of the photographs.

Most weddings are purposefully staged, constructed, planned and executed ... but so are rallies, protests, announcements ... even wars ... that are covered by "journalists". In neither case did the photographer plan them. In both cases the attempt is to document them as it happens.

That the content of a wedding doesn't consist of dismembered bodies, kidnappings or people eating loaves of dirt, has nothing to do with the way the content is captured. If the players are acting out a fairy tale with happiness and joy ... we photographers didn't plan it ... they, and the society we live in did.

So, when in the "journalist" mode, I am hunting for defining moments NOT of my making ... instead, they are a product of my sensory awareness and emotional sensitivity to the humanity flowing around me ... or so an attempt is made to do so.

There are herds of "wedding photojournalists" that profess this ... but IMHO just because they didn't plan the shots doesn't make them "good" photojournalists. Some are emotionally "illiterate" ... as in unable to "read" the people and life flowing around them.

luis_g · July 7, 2010

I think this is the all-time winner in the voluminous-post sweepstakes. I was yawning about 1/3rd of he way down, and I may save this for re-reading on sleepless nights. Purity? It's an ideal. When was journalism pure? Wedding photographers are making a living. They're neither artists nor philosophers. The real mystery is why you're so passionate about what others are doing and what they think.

Welcome to the Philosophy of Photography forum, btw.

jtk · July 8, 2010

Wedding photographers abuse the term "journalist" hoping that their work will seem to have more value than fine, traditional wedding photography.

All sorts of books, college classes, and formal written standards address ethical journalism. They begin by saying that journalists are not paid by their subjects. Therefore, when purported journalists are discovered to have been paid by their subjects, they are typically shamed.

There's no ethical equivalence between covering a demonstration and a wedding unless the photographer or writer is being paid by the demonstrators ...in which case he/she is a PR person, not a journalist.

Luis, I suspect we agree that the purpose of ethics isn't to achieve abstract "purity," it's to provide guidelines for behavior.

fate_faith_change_chains · July 8, 2010

Therefore, when purported journalists are discovered to have been paid by their subjects, they are typically shamed. ...in which case he/she is a PR person, not a journalist.

</blockquote>

Yes, a thin line ( or ever more not so ) in embedded war photojournalism ; Iraq. The "client" : the Pentagon ? <a href="http://rising.blackstar.com/do-embedded-photojournalists-actually-work-for-the-pentagon.html">http://rising.blackstar.com/do-embedded-photojournalists-actually-work-for-the-pentagon.html</a>

Wedding photographers abuse the term "journalist" hoping that their work will seem to have more value than fine, traditional wedding photography.

</blockquote>

In regard to the link above, it may also be the subject photographed to abuse the term "journalist", instead of the photographer.

luis_g · July 8, 2010

Is there really anything unethical about a pj-style wedding? Or advertising oneself as such? Lives there anyone so gullible as to mistake the PJ wedding guy for a journalist? Or that PJs don't have biases, or their editors, or agencies/clients. Ever hear of an advertorial?

Phylo - "Yes, a thin line ( or ever more not so ) in embedded war photojournalism ; Iraq. The "client" : the Pentagon ? <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rising.blackstar.com/do-embedded-photojournalists-actually-work-for-the-pentagon.html" target="_blank">http://rising.blackstar.com/do-embedded-photojournalists-actually-work-for-the-pentagon.html</a>"

Yes. Or anyone working for FOX.

Next thing we'll be talking about objectivity in Documentary Photography....

jtk · July 8, 2010

Good points Phylo... "embedded" put a spotlight on journalistic ethics... that "thin line" you mentioned becomes even thinner when we learn a journalist did her/his best to do right, be ethical but discovered she/he was just vending PR inventions, such as "body counts" and faked evidence of "WMDs" (per General Powell at the UN).

Carelessness with the term "journalism" is corrosive.

iliafarniev · July 8, 2010

Yes. This is the winner. Right here. All time.

wogears · July 8, 2010

It is also a Big Winner in the Art of using Capital Letters.

jtk · July 8, 2010

"Is there really anything unethical about a pj-style wedding?"

Of course not. The key word there is "style." The corrosive value system becomes evident when someone equates journalism to PR.

"Or that PJs don't have biases, or their editors, or agencies/clients. Ever hear of an advertorial?"

Of course not. And no journalist would claim he/she lacked personal biases. This is constantly discussed in the press (as readers know).

Advertorials are notoriously not journalism, of course. When TV stations run them they're typically shamed in the press. Fox avoids claiming its "unbiased"...they famously claim instead to be "fair and balanced." That means they select several perspectives and hype them...has nothing to do with journalism.

bobtodrick · July 8, 2010

A GOOD journalist tries as much as possible to cover both sides of an issue (of course everyone has some personal bias). He SHOULD try to cover the good, the bad and the ugly. A favorite of mine is Michael Yon ( michaelyon-online.com ), an embedded writer/photographer and ex-marine covering the worlds hot spots. He's 'good' enough at what he does that he was recently dis-embedded by the US military brass because of things he said about General McChrystal, recently relieved of command by President Obama. (after General Petraeus assumed command Yon was re-embedded).

Some of what he said was likely, in a small way what helped get McChrystal relieved. This in my mind is what a true journalist does...he doesn't pull punches, and hopefully whoever he is working for allows him to publish whatever he prints/shoots.

I don't feel a wedding 'journalist' does this. If the bride and the mother in law to be (for example) are in the midst of a heated argument on the wedding day, I doubt the wedding 'journalist' will record it. And if he does I highly doubt the images will make into the wedding album.

luis_g · July 8, 2010

It's like Walker Evans' work. It's art, in the documentary style. The wedding "PJ" is working in that style within a wedding. Sort of. Maybe it should be Wedding photography in the Street Photography style (I can imagine marketing that!).

jtk · July 8, 2010

Walker Evans wasn't paid by his subjects and he wasn't working "in the documentary style."

There is no "documentary style." Documentary work is done in all sorts of styles. A wedding photographer documents weddings, or fantasies of weddings. She/he actually is a documentary photographer.

Wedding photograpers use all sorts of "styles," and they do make documents, but "style" doesn't make them journalists.

fotografz · July 8, 2010

Being too literal? ... as opposed to common usage, and common understanding ... using common sense.

I seriously doubt that any wedding client thinks that their photographer is covering the wedding as a "journalist". All they want is that style of candid photography rather than being dominated, placed, and posed ... as if their wedding was a photo opt.

What if a NY Times society columnist shows up with a photographer? They aren't being paid by the client. Yet, I doubt they'd shoot a drunk Uncle Bob and run it in the society section.

jtk · July 8, 2010

Marc, I don't object to the "style" that's being used for marketing.

I object to the claim that the fantasy is the same as journalism: Real journalists are imprisoned and die all over the world, every year, for their profession's deeply ingrained ethics.

Wedding photographers, like advertising and PR photographers should be proud of the work they do for the money they earn (just like a plumber would), especially when they make their subjects look better-than-reality...but that work is nothing like journalism.

luis_g · July 8, 2010

JK- "Walker Evans wasn't paid by his subjects and he wasn't working "in the documentary style."

Really? He sure thought and said so. I'll leave it to John to deny Evans his own experience.

"Documentary: That’s a sophisticated and misleading word. And not really clear… The term should be documentary style… You see, a document has use, whereas art is really useless." - Walker Evans<a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=196&name=Evans,Walker"> </a> - Art in America, March-April 1971 , World History of Photography by Naomi Rosenblum , ISBN: 0789209462 , Page: 340

jtk · July 9, 2010

Luis, Nice try, no cigar. Read more closely. You specified "the documentary style. If you meant what you wrote, you believe there is just one style, ("the").

Evans addressed a bigger idea than style...he referred to documentation and some unspecified documentary style, not to "the documentary style"... misreading mis-uses the quotation.

Evans attempted to make a helpful point about "art" vs "document"...but he is made to seem wildly wrong if one uses that as holy writ . Consider the intended and realized uses of the work of Bach and Michaelangelo, for example. If their work wasn't made to be "used," Ford's Model T wasn't.

luis_g · July 9, 2010

John, you get the last word on your presumed "gotcha", which is what you want anyway. You're not even close about what you imagine I think, but then, that's nothing new.

luis_g · July 9, 2010

The idea that photography has rules, as if it were a game, is the recent (Post WWII) invention of people who self-appointed to the role of rule-makers. Walker Evans had no problems cleaning entire rooms, and/or moving furniture around (or moving some out ) in many of the spaces he photographed. No one blinked an eye. Other famous documentarians and journalists staged pictures using friends, family, employees, and paid models. Some carried props such as lamps and even glassware for doing journalistic portraits.

How should we regard these ways of working?

dan_south · July 11, 2010

Another Shakespearean idea: Brevity is the soul of wit.

Sign In

Photojournalism – Wedding Photojournalism – Journalism

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in