To PJ or not PJ, that is the question

[cenelsonfoto]

Greetings, Wedding Gurus:<p>

I shot my third-ever wedding last Saturday. A hectic day in some regards, but I

got it done, survived, etc. Definitely the best work so far, but always room for

improvement.

<p>

I am beginning to hear a lot of "You should be doing this more often", but I

don't know that I want to be a working wedding photographer. That is, I

appreciate the opportunities presented, especially from the documentary angle

which I love, but thus far I've been a candid/street-shooter, and shooting for

myself.

<p>

That has allowed me great freedom to make decisions, rather than adhere to shot

lists, directors, and the like. There is value in that. The value isn't

monetary, yet. And here is the fork in the road, and the question for you all.

<p>

How many of you would consider yourselves non-formal wedding photographers?

Certain shots have to be taken, sure, but how many of you insist upon minimal

interaction with participants, as in severely limited posing, etc? Is it even

possible to make a living shooting strict documentary style? I would be happy if

I never shoot another group shot, but can one sell a package like that?

<p>

Link to the latest slideshow below. Certainly not pure photojournalism in the

sense of completely non-posed, but some decent candids in the batch as well.

<p>

<a

href="http://nelsonfoto.com/photostories/DeniseNathan/tyingtheknot/">Slideshow</a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/34432914@N00/499133683/" title="Photo

Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/499133683_079065ee9a.jpg"

width="333" height="500" alt="The Strobist Devotee at Play" /></a>

[ellis_vener_photography]

The real question is: what kind of person are you?

 

Some people are good "PJ" type of photographers while others are just sloppy photographers using "PJ" as a shoddy disguise for their lack of ability, and others will naturally prefer the rigor of more formally set up work. Do the kind of work that matches you as a person.

[bdp]

I do the formals that are needed and try to do everything else as candids (to me it's the same as PJ style) and occassionally try to get a little experimental if time permits.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

I realize this is off topic but, did you really wear jeans and a T-shirt to cover the wedding?

[annealmasy]

You can absolutely sell a pure documentary style to wedding clients. I know several people

who do just that. But you have to be REALLY good, and REALLY "Photojournalist" to attract

the kinds of people who want that and that alone. I think your work is a little rough,

regardless of how you want to label it. Keep building your story-telling abilities and THEN

look at selling a pure documentary approach to weddings. As it is now, I don't think your

"candid" images are very strong.

[cenelsonfoto]

Ellis, the PJ/Doc work suits me. I'm most comfortable working crowds, etc., and the wedding provides the same sort of potential for observing and recording, which is at the root of what photography means to me. I can continue to refine my processes, but not sure how to market it to those asking for services. I don't want to be appear rude, or eccentric, even think it might be best to market myself as a roving second with no retrictions or demands on me - just hire me to do what I do, perhaps in conjunction with a formal shooter as first. I know, sounds like an assistant's gig shooting second, but the idea is really to be separate but equal to the first, in a sense... meaning, I would not be hired to mule for the first, but to conduct my own work. Just brainstorming here...

 

I also work close. And by that, I mean 18-35mm close. It's how I see the world, and I'd be happier if I didn't have lens-factor to contend with on the D70s, meaning true 18-35mm, not 24mm to whatever. Happier still if I could afford a faster WA than the IF-ED, which is a suitable lens, but a bit slow, tough to get separation at times.

 

Schilling - yes, I went casual, as were many of the guests; and the bride - my barrista - insisted I do so. The bride's happy, so I am happy. I stopped playing dress-up when I walked away from corporate life in 2005 to find my own path.

 

C.

[cenelsonfoto]

Anne - show me your idea of strong candid, please.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Lots of nice images....good luck from a fellow student of Bokonon :-)

[cenelsonfoto]

David, thanks.

[annealmasy]

CE, here is one photography team from Atlanta who shoots consistant photojournalism with

phenomenal results: <a href="http://www.lacourphoto.com">LaCour</a>

<p>

Anyone can take an unposed picture. Crafting an evocative story from undirected moments

is another ability altogether. It's something I'm constantly striving to learn, and it's not at all

easy to achieve. But you WILL find clients willing to pay for this type of imagery if it's done

well.

[stacy]

CE- check out this site fro some pj inspiration:

 

http://www.billmcculloughphotography.com/

 

You have some nice shots :)

[karenco]

Hi CE. First of all let me say that I do believe it's possible to sell a primarily PJ or documentary style of shooting and be very successful at it. You can also possibly find a photographer who is more classically or traditionally based and work together to present two styles. However, as Anne pointed out, you do need to be VERY strong both technically and in your storytelling abilities in order ot make it work - especially to make it work at a level where you can earn a living.

 

As of right now, based on what I see on your site, your work is not quite at that level. Don't get me wrong - I do think you've got some good potential and there are a handful of really solid images there, but for the most part it seems to me that you've *just* missed the moment in these candids - either a split second too early or a split second too late. Many of the images just seem like random captures, and don't seem to have a reason or a focal point or to contribute to the story of the day.

 

Also, you need to work on your technical a bit. Your flash work is very harsh and flat - not flattering light for brides or weddings. I'm seeing a lot of blown out highlights and very tweaked contrasty images as well.

 

It's a great market to be in, truly. I love my clients who want more hands off stuff and only a small handful of family photos. But they still expect GOOD, solid, artistic work ... even if it's PJ.

 

Karen

[gregory_c]

Cool shots, I have shot weddings professionally since 1994, shot first wedding in 1983. Until several years ago, all I shot was mostly posed shots. Nowdays I mix posed shots with P&J. I wish I could do P&J only at weddings !! You have a marketable approach of wedding photography. Remember, things do not really quit, they just get re-invented, your approach re-invents wedding photography.I like your website slideshow, what software do you use to do that ?

[ellis_vener_photography]

CE,

 

Mycomments were meantto a general audience and not directed personally at you. My point is you (you being anyone reading this) have to know yourself and true to yourself.

[ian_cooke1]

I agree that it is certainly possible, but that you will have to work on developing a very strong and marketable style. The Lacour website is awesome - I haven't seen them before - amazing work. I happen to think some of the people who have replied above have some very strong work also, PJ or not. I think a lot of it has to do with timing... observing, anticipating, waiting for, and capturing those very quick split seconds of magic. Myself, I am far from photojournalistic in my shooting, but it is something I certainly love. <p>

Without repeating the above advice, I would also suggest throwing in a bit of color. Photojournalism doesn't automatically mean classic black & white. And while your black & white processing is decent, but I think could use a bit of "punch". Part of that is the lighting and use of flash. I would recommend seeking out and working with the available light a little more.

[cenelsonfoto]

Thanks for the Lacour link, Anne... some nice shots there, but overall it doesn't suit me.

<p>

Karen, you are arguing style, which really can't be argued. I shoot what I shoot, and I use light the way I want it to be used. The only shot in the batch that got away from me is included below. I intentionally shoot hot, and I intentionally lean toward high-contrast images - tonal range from just under 255 to 0, depending on the composition. Sometimes, less contrast is what I mean to achieve, and that is obvious at a glance. I'm a <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/">Strobist</a> that loves his speedlight and synch-cord and have no trouble one-handing my D70s while operating my light, both in manual mode. You say potato, I say spud.

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/34432914@N00/502973139/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/502973139_9afc0d5c3d_m.jpg" width="160" height="240" alt="DSC_4877" /></a><p>

 

I included the hot shot because I felt the subject was strong enough to sustain the hit. It's probably my favorite shot of all of them. Your mileage may very.

<p>

The "good, solid, artistic" line is worn, and sounds like brow-beating handed down from a self-assumed maestro. More likely, what others who use it have heard over time from those they sought validation from? No, I'm not trying to be pissy, just that to offer such "wisdom" is pointless, unnecessary, and arrogant. I know what artistic is when I see it. You should know it when you see it. But the conversation ends there. None has a lock on what is or ain't. Besides, it's not germane to the discussion, really, as I'm not looking for critique.

<p>

Stacey - yeh, McCullough is rocking. I'm not a big fan of the color work, but the B&W shots show a man after my own heart. May have to contact him - could see working with a cat like that.

<p>

G Cottis - Simpleviewer is what I use for the galleries. Very soon, I'll be removing redirect from my domain to my blogspot, and rebuilding front-end from scratch. Not sure what I will employ at that point, but Simpleviewer's been good while I've used it.

<p>

As to the re-invention comment, that might be close to the mark. I mean, I look at a lot of wedding work, and I also get the regularly delivered Rangefinder, etc. I note a very homogenized style these days, everybody on a seeming quest for surreality, or some idealized fantasy of the day. I'm all about bokeh when I need it, but the key for me is recording reality, not manufacturing it or interpreting it. I like old-school press photography, hard light, lots of contrast, and that's what I strive for in my work; and that search is still in progress, of course. Give me Bukowski over Shakespeare any day. y'Follow me? And thank you for the comments.

<p>

C.

[cenelsonfoto]

Ellis - I hear ya.

 

Ian, ditto.

 

I suppose I just need to keep on keeping on, continue finding my own way. I don't want to be another shooting high-money weddings with the same look. I have my own agenda, will just need to work out the marketing angle.

 

Thanks for the feedback, all of you.

 

C.

[stacy]

CE- have you seen a company called "real life weddings" in Chicago I think. I don't have the link handy but try to find them for more B&W that I love :)

 

And you just gave your marketing angle here

 

"old-school press photography, hard light, lots of contrast..."

 

get a website- good font- fancy pricing materials- slap this all over it- you're gold :)

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Stacy, Here's the link to Steve's website (Real Life Weddings) http://www.stevenegross.com/

[david_schilling___chicago_]

and http://www.reallifeweddings.com/

[robbie_caswell]

Nice job! But... Show me the color!

 

Outside of a master like Ascough, personally, I would likely get dreadfully bored shooting/looking at 100% candid/PJ shots. I like to mix some fun group posed images.

 

I think a group of friends mugging for the camera on the dance floor can effectively capture the moment and have as much meaning, emotion, joy, for the client as a pre ceremony getting ready shot.

 

Formals are a challange for me, but I dread them less and look forward to them when I have time to experiment.

 

As with my feelings on strictly PJ, I feel the same about B+W. Love it, but it gets tiresome. They spend oodles of money and their decision on color choice is as important as anything else.

[g_mcduff]

<i>I included the hot shot because I felt the subject was strong enough to sustain the hit. It's probably my favorite shot of all of them. Your mileage may very.</i>

<p>You could look at it several different ways. When I look at that shot, any moment it could have had is completely overpowered by the distraction of a giant hotspot smack in the middle of the frame. Your personal style? Perhaps, but it also suggests someone who doesn't know how to expose or post-process very well, and that's a possibility you don't want coming up in a client's mind who's thinking of paying you $$$ to document the most important day in her life.

<p>You didn't ask for a critique, but you did say:

 

<p><i>Is it even possible to make a living shooting strict documentary style? I would be happy if I never shoot another group shot, but can one sell a package like that?</i>

 

<p>Karen essentially said "for you, not yet" in the most gentle way possible. But as you said, potatos and spuds.

[surfidaho]

Not to take us off topic again, but in my corporate world (high tech R&D), I wear a Hawaiian shirt, cargo shorts, and Chaco sandals (which is what I am wearing right now).

 

At most weddings, I wear a suit and tie.

 

It's great that this bride wanted you to be casual, and that you could do this wedding in jeans and a t-shirt. However, the most common complaint I hear about some of my fellow photographers is how badly they are dressed. They do impeccable work, but if their appearance is a distraction at a wedding, word gets around quick.

 

If you don't want to play dress-up, you're in the wrong business. You should look at least as dressy as the average attendee, and it's best to err on the side of being a bit overdressed. You can always take off the jacket and tie.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Just saw your "Rebuilding Together NWA" images....is that Walnut as in Rogers, Ark?

[greg jansen]

Your work looks like most wedding photographers today. Capture what is happening. I don't think your work is so photojournalistic as to scare people away. I think it leans towards the norm.

 

The only difference you don't have any family shots on in your slideshow.

 

That's not to say that spending 15 minutes doing a few requested family groupings does not make you a photojournalist.

 

Most brides want what you delivered, plus a few family shots.

 

I don't think you are as far off as you think you are.

 

So you have to ask yourself the question, "Will I shoot a few family groupings in order to get the job?"

 

If yes, book some jobs and make some money. If no, be prepared to wait a long time until you find a wedding to shoot.

 

I personally do not find anything so exciting about family shots, but I understand the importance of it to the bride and family. I'll gladly take the time to do them. What's 15-30 minutes in an 8 hour day?

 

Ultimately I want the client to be pleased. I accept the fact that 99% will want some family groupings. I work on the list with them, and keep it short. It's just a small piece of the day. It does not define me as a tradtional photographer. There are plenty of other oportunites throught the day to let me creativity and storytelling to shine through. The tough part is getting what is expected, while adding your own twist to it.

 

I consider myself a very creative person, and if I was to get married I would seek out someone with a creative eye, AND someone who would be sure to capture a few family shots during a set time during the day. I guess I'm like most brides.

 

Again, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Have a look at what others are doing.