How much do you "direct"?

[mcmanamey]

I'm curious - when you're shooting the bride getting into her dress, being laced up, getting shoes

on, etc... how much do you "direct" the scene?

 

Do you just find the best angle and fire away?

 

Do you ask people to stand in certain places to give you the best view?

 

Do you ask them to slow down or even re-do an action in order for you to be sure you got what you

wanted?

 

My natural tendency is to just get the best angle I can and fire away, asking girls to step to one

side or the other, only to open up my field of view, and only if I <b>have</b> to. Being not terribly

happy with those results, I am about to start actually giving a <b><i>little</b></i> direction to

getting the bride dressed. I want the shot a particular way, dang it.

[davidandkara]

I think it depends on your bride and how badly she wants that shot. You should be talking to her beforehand to figure out what shots she really really wants, and asking her how much she would prefer you direct things. Some brides don't mind at all, because they'll want really great pictures... other brides would rather you just blend in and document it as best you can with more of a spontaneous journalistic approach that's less encroaching. You can't go wrong by asking her what she prefers. ;o)

[William Michael]

Rapport with the Bride (especially) and Groom and other Key players, is begun at the first sales meeting and the developed during the planning and detail gathering.

 

Having stated that: to answer your question, I direct `as required` to get the results I require, and, as I have mentioned before here, if that direction requires `hands on`, then so it is.

 

Rapport and Communication are essential elements IMO: my business was, and still is, based upon that premise.

 

It is very difficult, (though not impossible), to direct AND get good results in the bedroom of the Bride, having only just met her minutes earlier.

 

In this regard the question about `how much direction` should firstly be addressed by questioning:

 

How much preparation? How much Rapport has been developed?

 

WW

[david_schilling___chicago_]

How do you answer a question like this? To some people I'm sure that they'd say that I direct alot....others might say not as much or somewhere inbetween. To say I do it as often as required introduces another vague variable. Many new shooters will direct minimally out of a lack of confidence/experience and then claim that as a "style".

 

I would suggest that you look at the styles of the half dozen pros shooting on these DVDs: http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/shop.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Product_Code=WEDTV2025&Category_Code=DVD

 

Of these, I most admire the style of Parker Pfister. Watching a pro in action is the best answer to your question.

[jimstrutz]

I direct more now than I used to, but still prefer to "find" shots. However, sometimes you just gotta step in and ask people to do things, otherwise the results suffer. If your style is strictly photojournalism you never directly intervene, but I suspect there are few purists among us, and even fewer brides that really want that kind of purity. Some brides naturally play up to the lens, and others want to be coached, and still others want you to stay out of their way. You adjust your style to suit the situation.

[mtrejo6]

I rarely tell the bride what to do when she's getting ready. If anything, I may just tell her to smile a little more or be happy. As time goes by, you learn to anticipate the shot so directing is not really necessary. Now when it comes to posing, thats when I get more involved. It's a matter of personal style I guess.

[reneereynolds]

In the "getting ready" phase, I typically do not do much directing. I may ask a bride to move to one area or another for better lighting or have a participant turn to one side or another for a more pleasing shot, but that is about the extent of it.

David is certainly right. Parker is amazing. I am fortunate to have him right down the road, but one of the things I know about Parker is that his rapport is in part due to the fact that he does a lot of street shooting, and actually interacts with his subjects on a much greater level than most, and in doing so, has some of the most admirable people skills to go along with his shooting ability. It goes back to what William was saying in regard to rapport with the client. If you ask the questions beforehand and develop that relationship with the bride, there will be no doubt about what she wants.

[picturesque]

A lot or not at all, depending upon lighting, the situation, the number of people in the room, how self conscious or not the bride/people are, and what the client has told me they want.

[brooks whittington]

We don't interfere at all.

 

We don't ask people to move, we don't tell people to get ready in better light, we don't move details, we don't turn on/off lights, we don't open/close window shades.

 

It is OUR job to find the photo.

 

YMMV, of course.

 

~brooks

[William Michael]

The vast range of replies, IMO, also shows the vast range of styles and Wedding Coverages undertaken.

 

My guess is that, Brooks (above) might be almost exclusively Photojournalistic, or story capture: whilst it is my job (usually) to capture fewer images, but all more controlled: our storybook, at the Bride`s home is usually captured by my assistant.

 

Totally Storybook Capture (aka Wedding Photojournalism), whether dictated by the Photographer`s Style or the Client`s request, would demand less, if any intervention at all: most likely a little subtly if the shot were critical, I think.

 

WW

[rick rosen]

Being a photojournalistic storyteller I do not direct at all. In fact except for the friendly hello when I arrive and hugs when I leave I do not talk to my clients at all. The only exception being during the formal family groupings which usually last 15-20 minutes.

 

People change when they are aware they are being photographed. I want real emotions.

 

Rick

[steve_c.5]

Every wedding party is different. Some people are more animated and generate great situations and shots on their own, and some people are very drab, and don't know what to do with themselves (particularly with guys). In all cases, there are some times when a little direction can work wonders. If I shot purely photojournalistically ALL of the time, my clients would not be as happy with my work. Many of them are looking to me as a professional to help place them in good light and to do things like direct them to spruce up a dressing room for better photos, to move to a better vantage point, etc. This isn't to say I direct genuine emotional moments I shoot those when and the way they occur.

[think27]

I'm of the belief that once you start directing - you loose natural spontaneous shots.

 

First step is to enter the room, look at the details, messes, lighting, windows, angles etc.

 

Second step is to chat, congratulate, comment on dresses, makeup and how beautiful the bride is (because she always is).

 

I'll ask if they mind if I clean up certain areas of the room if need be, or open the blinds if it is ok with them and turn on room lights to the highest settings etc..

 

Then, I stand back and let things unfold. The hugs, the makeup and hair fixes, the Mom helping and getting emotional etc... You can't direct that and if they forget you are there - they will be more emotive and the shots will be natural and wonderful.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Mary, I knew there was a reason I liked you so much. Your just a natural (pun intended) photographer.

[mcmanamey]

Thank you all - I think my biggest problem is being a trained portrait photog. I don't

"do" landscapes, flowers, etc (by my opinion, anyway), so I'm continually struggling

against the tendency to be creating the perfect portrait instead of letting em happen.

I'm all for letting my hubby do the photojournalist job (his training), but the girls sure

are a lot more comfy w/ me in the room instead of him!!

 

William W, Nadine - I also want to take a second to tell you how much I enjoy

reading your comments in the threads. I really like the way you 2 work.

 

And this doesn't mean I don't like anybody else's style - just extra appreciation to a

considerate answer from those 2. I think I'll quit while I'm ahead now...

[picturesque]

Maria--I appreciate your comment--thank you. I also would like to add, you might want to define 'direction'. To me, direction is fixing up stuff, opening the blinds, etc. To me, not interfering means not touching anything, not talking, not changing the blinds, not telling someone to repeat something if you miss the action. There is a broad range between the two. As I said above, I go with whatever degree I need to produce the shots my client tells me she/they want. I have had some brides say they don't even want any getting ready shots and don't want anyone in room while they get dressed. Some people are not particularly emotive. It all depends.

 

However, I know what you mean re having to resist making things perfect. I studied commercial/tabletop photography and had a hard time with control when I started.

[mcmanamey]

yeah, I was going to pop in w/ clearer description of directing.

 

In this case in particular, I am talking about the "getting ready" shots ONLY. I am

not above asking people to move to a better location (do it all the time when we're

shooting video), or changing the lighting or moving the stuff out of the background.

 

This particular question is about actually asking the girls to re-zip the bride's dress

(if it zips and they just moved to darn fast, or maybe I want a close up & a wide

angle), or asking the attendants to stand around the bride in a particular location to

open up my field of view. Even to re-do the fastening of the necklace or bracelet.

 

I have no qualms about asking them to hold their wrist a particular way, or to re-do

the dress for their video, but when I'm shooting stills, I tend to just be a fly on the

wall. Trying to catch what I can, but not asking for any redos, or trying to move

people around. Funny, huh?

[picturesque]

Just like I mentioned earlier, it depends on the actual image, whether I ask someone to re-do something. Even the most no-pose bride, for instance, is not going to like a shot of her underarm, for instance, in a shot of zipping up the dress, so if the shot I'm trying to get is important enough in the storyline, and I can't get another angle or another chance, I will re-do the shot with the arm down.

 

Re fastening the necklace, etc.--ask yourself whether the bride will want the shot with her mom's face showing or hidden behind her? It all comes down to judgement and what the client told you she wants.

[William Michael]

Maria:

 

A very nice comment to wake up to this morning, thank you.

 

Very insightful.

 

I would ask the Bride to have the Dress re zipped, if for that Wedding and for that Bride, it was necessary.

 

I have had a broad brush with cine and theatre. Often the very best Directors are the ones who `interfere` the least: it appears they are doing no direction at all.

 

On the definition of what direction actually is, some exude and stimulate an higher level of activity and awareness simply by being there. Is that covert direction?

 

I do not know Parker Pfister, who has been mentioned, but my guess is he, on many occassions talks very little, but exudes and energy, and a calm, to which people respond.

 

One of the very first `celebrity` Weddings I photographed, was a model, not widely known on the international stage, but well known. I had worked with her once on her initial portfolio shots when she was 18. She exuded energy and had a connecting skill, rarely encountered. She was a pleasure to work with and one of those unique people whom you think you have known for years, ten minutes after meeting them. She made a good impact with a large agency and she was finding regular work. She was married at 21, and she remembered our studio.

 

At our first meeting she was quite specific about what she wanted in the Bedroom as she was getting dressed, (it must be remembered this was about 28 years ago and storybook style (as we refer to it, was not common place: the shots at the Bride`s home in those days were more Family Portrait style.

 

(Humbly but honestly) the images we produced were stunning, and were all `natural`.

 

I do not think I said more than two or three words to her, or her Bridesmaids: I spoke more to her Mother, as I was leaving for the Church, than anyone.

 

But I consider in that Bride`s Bedroom and in her Parent`s house that afternoon, not only I, but She did more `directing` than many photographers would encounter in three Weddings.

 

Certainly it is party of how you want to define the word `Directing`: but IMO, but the whole issue is predicated upon the Rapport and the amount of Rapport not only which is developed, but which is allowed to be developed.

 

On the other hand the true journalist might argue that the purity of journalistic cover is compromised by any intervention whatsoever.

 

I think that is more where the definitions come into play: I would term my `storybook` an hybrid journalistic style: it tells the story, true and accurate but, perhaps as the movie producers often write `based on factual circumstances`.

 

WW