The Evolution of Wedding Photography

[picturesque]

"What it's about" is producing the kind of photographic record your client tells you they want. Whether that record is one style or another (capturing real stories and moments to traditional shot list to every cliched PJ shot there is) is something that I hope the couple has consciously shopped for and acquired. My opinion only--we wedding photographers sometimes fall into the "me" syndrome too readily--"my style", "my art", "my experience of your wedding", etc. (The above is not at all directed at Marc's comments about wanting to be "more me". His comments about his motives are completely different from the kind of self-centered approach I am talking about here.) I tend to take a more mundane approach to wedding photography, since it is a product that is sold to a client. I try to find out what kind of record a couple wants and try to produce that record for them, since I can vary my style within a certain range.

 

I recently lost a prospect to a photographer that used a lot of PS work--your typical bag of tricks. After talking to the prospect, I immediately realized that I was not the photographer for her, since that bag of tricks was what she wanted, and while I can do them, it isn't something I like to do. She wasn't looking for a photographer who would "create unique interpretations"--she was looking for a photographer with that bag of tricks. Is that photographer then not a contributing member (of all wedding photographers) to the evolution of wedding photography? Absolutely not--he has every right to exist and continue to sell his product to whoever will buy it. So maybe for him, exploring his style IS the PJ bag of tricks. Maybe for him, what it's really about is being able to shoot this way and find brides who will buy his style.

 

The mundane nature of wedding photography is also why there is always a shot list. Even while hunting down the real stories, I have never seen the work of a wedding photographer that didn't include a "portrait" of the bride alone in her gown, for instance, even if it is not the typical posed shot. Or a portrait of the couple alone, whether interacting or posed. Your 70s and 80s photographer had the same shot list as your trendiest PJ photographer (no matter how much he or she may deny having a shot list), and while what is remembered about 70s and 80s photographers are the posed shots, they also shot what were called candids. Would a 70s and 80s photographer NOT shoot the bride's grandmother shedding tears while talking to the bride between the ceremony and formals? Of course they would shoot it. You have to also remember that wedding photography was sold by the picture back then--many of these shots didn't make it into the traditional wedding album that had limited room. I've also read articles written by 70s photographers talking about selective focus, bouncing flash, capturing action and using storytelling elements.

 

As for where we go from here, I'm sure it will be somewhere, but I don't think there is a full circle to be made. To a certain extent, the trends in wedding photography have been a result of technological advances. I've heard more than once the theory that still photographers will die out in favor of video so advanced that high quality stills could be pulled out. I don't want to start another war over the topic--I just use it to make my point about technology. Or maybe we will end up doing away with stills in favor of 3D holograms, like the ones shown in Star Trek and Star Wars...would we need professional wedding photographers/videographers then?

[DickArnold]

Nadine. I agree with you. What it was about for me was faces. It was trying to capture some expressions that would evoke some emotion when viewed in years to come. I did not always succeed but I always tried. I stopped shooting weddings in 2003 and I would say my ratio of formal to candid was about 100 to 400 depending in the size of the wedding. But the issue for me was to photograph people being interested in one another rather than the photographer. I did a lot of tight shots to try and capture that emotion.

[gaetano catelli]

"So where do we go from here?"

 

personally, i'm trying to go in the direction of accurately compensating for tricky exposure situations.

[matt_needham]

"Many photographers really need to look up what "photo-journalism" means."

 

They use the term because it's the term the bridal mags/sites use. Most brides don't know what "photo-journalism" means either, but they know what they want. They usually do not want stark, factual reality. Only "real" PJ photogs care that the word may be being misused. As long as the wedding photog and bride are on the same page, does it really matter what words they use?