What style are weddings shot on these days?

[dave_mccoll]

<p>Hello, I am an avid, semi professional photojournalist. I shoot a lot of assignment stuff for a few local weekly papers and constantly get asked if I shoot weddings. My usual answer is "no", I'm not interested in all of the setting up of the cheesy, faded, sparkly, shots I see (or Bride-zilla for that matter).<br>

Someone mentioned to me that one new and popular technique is to shoot documentary style. Very little, if any setting up, candid shots of everyone from getting ready right through to late in the evening. I could really get into that! Anyone done this? Is it popular? Thanks, Dave.</p>

[alan_chan4]

<p>Almost every wedding photographers claimed to be journalistic style these day, but to many, it's just an excuse for incompetence. From what I have seen online, maybe less than 5% are good. The rest are either heavily PP boring shots with flashy flash websites, or downright embarrassing. I cannot stand cheesy posed shots too, but if their clients were satisfied, who am I to judge? :)</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Is the technique popular? Yes - has been for about 8-10 years, to a greater or lesser extent depending where you live.</p>

<p>Reportage is the style I work in (see my portfolio linked from my name) and I embrace it with a pure documentary approach without intervention/communication with the wedding party. Not too many people are rigorously documentary; many prefer to guide or direct their subjects a little. Plenty of scope for either approach depending on preference and comfort. My own model is based on storytelling with complete freedom and creative control, and all moments real and observed.</p>

<p>You need a lot of practice and confidence to do it well. If you've got both, why not give it a go?</p>

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>I'm in the middle somewhere. I like people to act naturally and not feel they have to stop being themselves in front of the camera. I think you'll find a lot of photographers feel this way. But, that doesn't eliminate the "formals" process because <em>someone </em>will want those formal shots. So, a mixture of capturing beautiful and artistic posed shots that in some moments are fun and "natural" and in other moments perhaps in a more formal or elegant mood... and documentary-style capturing of people being who they truly are on their wedding day... is a balance I have always sought to maintain. And thus, my clients get the best of both worlds, without feeling like they had to not be themselves. It has worked very well for me so far.</p>

<p>Heh - I had used the word oxymo ron and the system told me I was being uncivil. I love it. : )</p>

[maile_lani]

<p>I do a mix of everything :) I'm probably 80% journalistic, 18% creative detail shots, and 2% formals :) Michael is right, there will always be a mom or a grandfather or someone that wants some posed shots. I make sure my couples give me a list to work off before hand so it's way easier the day of and takes wayyyy less time. I also try to get my people to interact with each other during the formals so they're not too traditional and slightly journalistic, even though I'm telling them where to stand. :D</p>

[dave_mccoll]

<p>Thanks for the great comments everyone. Neil, that is great work and exactly what I would like to do. Cheers everyone. Dave.</p>

[art_tatum]

<p>Neil Ambrose you've got it and I want some!</p>

[benjamin_tapper]

<p>I'm with Maile-<br>

I am prob about 85% "photo journalistic" Though i have come to loathe that word in the wedding industry. I used to travel abroad and do real photojournalism, so naturally it carried over to my work in weddings. But I've always had the creative side too, that i try and bring into my portraiture. So yes, you can do well with a "photojournalistic" approach, but as i've been discovering that won't get you the full way.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I think Neil was right in that it depends on where you are, and the "prevailing winds" in that area.</p>

<p>I came from a strict fly on-the-wall, decisive moment, approach developed while shooting on the street and documenting the making of films and TV commercials using a Leica M. My first weddings were strictly documentary using only B&W film, and I made all the prints myself in my darkroom. </p>

<p>As more and more people entered wedding photography with "do it all" digital cameras, they tended to adopt the documentary moniker ... and while we photographers can most certainly tell who is good at it and who is not, many clients cannot. If you are as good at it as Neil or Jeff Ascough, and the client base is discriminating and educated to the approach, not to mention "established", it can be very satisfying if that is your talent.</p>

<p>I now do both because the winds have changed here where I shoot ... documenting the wedding as it unfolds, and producing "environmental wedding portraits" that few of the wonder-camera photojournalist can do at all. I like doing both because they're fun. The trick is to not subvert your real passion for documentary work ... which is a real danger. </p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Weddings are shot in many different styles these days. However, photojournalistic or reportage style has been 'popular' for a while, with the word becoming almost meaningless. True wedding photojournalism is something one can promote and do--just be careful with what you promise, and know your market. Many prospects also don't really know what the word means or what to expect. The classic case is a client who gets angry because he or she (or more likely, his or her mother) doesn't get any posed or family group shots at all. It still happens.</p>

<p>If you haven't already, please read the Master Lesson by Neil Ambrose, about reportage wedding photography.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo</a></p>

[fotografz]

<p>Man-o-man, I cannot more strongly reinforce what Nadine said above. </p>

<p>My last wedding was stuffed with a laundry list of posed shots that the client sprung on me at the last minute. I quipped to my second shooter that I had no idea why they hired me (I don't have one single "formal group shot" on my website), and there was no indication they didn't grasp what I was selling at any meeting we had. Since it was too late to get them another photographer, I just sucked it up and did it with a smile on my face.</p>

<p>The moral of the story is that you have to be crystal clear in what you are selling, to the point that you deliberately tell them that you are strictly a documentary style photographer, and <strong>what not to expect and why</strong>. People are conditioned to preconceived expectations that they may not even articulate ... thinking that posed shots will be covered even if you don't discuss it at a pre-meeting. Depending on the area, most clients have no idea the impact that doing up to 20-30 posed set-ups has on the over-all documentary coverage of the "real" wedding, and the timing of the wedding day itinerary. (I usually do about 6 to 8 posed shots in about 20 minutes or so). </p>

[dmcgphoto]

<p>Depends on the market you are looking to work with.<br>

Most clients want a mixture, but in my mind what separates the "5%" Alan referred to, and photographers like Neil.....really his work is flippin amazing. Is craft and patience.<br>

<br />New assistants will come in and shoot everything, and think it's all art. More experienced PJ's will sit and wait on the moment, knowing it will come, being in the right place for that "decisive moment"<br>

<br />However, I find that few clients, when pressed, want true candid images, they like the moments, and they want the expressions, but if they notice the camera..BOOM..Facebook smile!<br>

You must keep in your bag how to organize and create good quality posing, that can appear candid, yes this absolutely means you aren't a reportage style photographer, you aren't<br>

What little advice I can offer with doing mostly to strictly PJ work you may already know<br>

1. The most important button on the camera is the delete button<br>

2. 2 eyes...must have 2 eyes, unless there is some other subject involved (hand on face, handkerchief etc).......a profile shot of two people looking at each other btw is 2 eyes!<br>

good luck</p>

[savagesax]

I more or less try to depict the days events. In my opinion the parents want group posed shots, some of them actually want table shots. Since I was hired by them I feel we should do what they ask for. I really like to tell a story, as some of you posted. There's really on right or wrong answer here, it's giving the people what they want. For the record I don't enjoy taking table shots, but I don't mind taking group shots so in future years people can look at them and reminisce.

 

A lot of photographers refer to some parts as posed PJ. I haven't really caught on to that. I feel its simply a photo that was set up by the photographer.

 

I think most of us pretty much take some PJ photos or a lot of these types of photos.

[shawn_mertz]

<p>Neal, what do you do when your subjects ask for guidance? Even worse tonight the Emcee over the PA system said Shawn will now tell them how to cut the cake. </p>

[rae_wells]

<p>Ha Shawn! That's funny. At the wedding I shot last, the emcee told everyone to grab their cameras at every pertinent moment. And he specifically said "flash cameras." And every guest seemed to have one. After the forth or fifth time, it was really difficult not to go up and punch him in the face. ;-)</p>

[shawn_mertz]

<p>I've had that happen too, a few cameras are okay but 20 is tough. The guy was very good except for the one incident.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>A lot of photographers refer to some parts as posed PJ. I haven't really caught on to that. I feel its simply a photo that was set up by the photographer. (Bob)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I agree. No such thing as posed PJ in my opinion. But I've seen the technique used to make nice lifestyle portraits. Most fashion stories are shot that way, so it certainly works. But the end result is different, and the process of getting there is different too. Whether it's appropriate depends on the client, and the promises made by the photographer when they were hired. A client who is expecting reportage and is asked to participate in lots of setup shots is unlikely to be happy, irrespective of the quality of the final images. It's not all about the image - the way of working is just as important.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...what do you do when your subjects ask for guidance? (Shawn)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shawn - the issue of clients looking for guidance doesn't really affect me. I tend to be hired by people who are definitely not looking for that approach, so I guess it's a kind of self-selection. I occasionally run into guests who think I'm a different kind of photographer and run up and ask for their portrait. It's not what I'm there for, but it would be churlish to refuse so I just shoot what they ask (and generally do a pretty nice job) and move on quickly. Tends to be mostly teenagers or really drunk people :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>New assistants will come in and shoot everything, and think it's all art. More experienced PJ's will sit and wait on the moment, knowing it will come, being in the right place for that "decisive moment" (Daniel)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. I think one of the things that is needed for solid reportage is that the photographer is clear about their role. It comes down to a question of mindset. Good moments are there to be found at any wedding, but can require sustained observation before they reveal themselves. And sustained observation requires a degree of transparency because the more self-conscious the subject becomes, the fewer real moments there are to be found. So I'm never very convinced that reportage is something that can be just done in and amongst other things. I can't imagine myself switching between table and guest portraits, then back to reportage. The reason is that those things would require me to direct the subjects in a very overt way, and demand also that the subject consider how they want to be portrayed in the image. The mindset (for both parties) is the opposite of what's needed for natural, candid imagery.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Depends on the market you are looking to work with. (Daniel)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again true. It takes a special kind of client to really buy into reportage. At risk of generalising, I find that clients who really understand the documentary approach tend to be assured, confident and comfortable with their choices, don't feel the need to micro-manage, and don't feel the need to be the center of attention. They're often highly literate in visual terms and have a pre-defined aesthetic in mind. Most importantly, they don't need (or want) to be told what to do, and are willing to trust the photographer to do their thing, even if they may not always see much of them during the wedding.</p>

<p>BTW - many thanks to all of you who complimented my work. Much appreciated. I've never asked for a C&C from other photographers, and it's nice to get the feedback.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>I think there are no absolutes in wedding photography. Weddings are not all action shots. There is a combination of portrait, candid, still-life, and even landscape depending on location. The PJ that many discuss on forums can mean so many things. Let's consider a photojournalistic magazine piece. Let's use National Geographic for instance. Depending on the story there are posed shots, landscape shots, close-up details, action and candid shots, etc. To me that is PJ. So why at weddings do we limit PJ to any one particular style of photography?<br>

PJ may be more of an intent than a shooting style. If your photos are made to tell a story than you have "documented" for that story and it does not matter the types of photos, only that they are in some kind of relevant mix to tell the tale.<br>

In my opinion that defines PJ, but others will argue solely based on style of the photos.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>BTW, Neil Ambrose - now one of my favorite photographers. Love your approach Neil, beautiful pictures.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Lou — thank you.</p>