mike_lee14 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 <p>Hi<br> Reading David dhChemin's book Within the frame. He talks about taking "pictures OF people" rather then "pictures ABOUT people".</p> <p>In pictures OF people one would get to know the person being photographed whereas in pictures ABOUT people would only be a picture of the outside view of the person being photographed.</p> <p>This sounds very grand and I wonder if it's possible to carry this philosophy into pictures of Bride, Family etc?</p> <p>Any thought will be appreciated as well as how one would go about getting such sessions.</p> <p>Thanks</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitch_w1 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 <p>I'm not sure if this is what he means but I always try to shoot engagement sessions and break bread with my wedding clients so that come wedding day we already know each other and are most likely friends. This makes a huge difference to the wedding day shoot because then they feel like a friend is photographing their wedding as opposed to a stranger. The clients are more relaxed, allowing their personalities to shine through. It makes a big difference in the photos.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_lee14 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 <p>Sounds like you've sorted it out.<br> Not all of us have the oppertunity of spending time with the bride and family before the event.<br> How would one befriend them in the short and limited time one has at a wedding?<br> Do you get the bride to talk about her dress, friends,parents or what.<br> Or do you just tell the bride that she looks like a million $$?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acedigital Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 <p>While this is an interesting philosophical concept, I think every photographer who aspires to do weddings and events, has to establish a rapport with their clients, get to know them, something about what they like/love, etc to make things more "personal", I think that is what he is getting at.<br> Sounds pretty "basic"/common sense to me.........:)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_lee14 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 <p>Thanks Mark<br> Do you suggest asking<br> "any particular poses you love or hate?"</p> <p>Do you think it'll rain today?</p> <p>Do you like chocolate?</p> <p>She may come back with;<br> why are you asking me these silly questions? I'm not your school friend;-(<br> or "why is this photographer chatting me up, doesn't he know that I'm getting merried?"</p> <p>Or can one get her personality just by observing.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 <p>One can say that pictures of people is true PJ wedding coverage and pictures about people is the traditional approach. I make the distinction between true PJ and pseudo PJ, because pseudo PJ is also pictures about people. I also point out that there is nothing wrong with working the pictures about people angle either, because (I believe) the vast majority of wedding photography clients want pictures about them and their event. The minority that really want pictures of them, I venture, also want a measure of pictures about them.</p> <p>Back in the early 90s, I recall some magazine staging a "debate" between Monte Zucker and Denis Reggie, talking about this issue. Monte Zucker represented the idealized view of weddings, Denis Reggie represented the PJ view.</p> <p>It is the nature of wedding photography to be "mostly" about people. After all, it is the same event, with many same elements--from details to procedures to goals--each time you photograph a wedding. I know a photographer can--from time to time--capture the subjects' true essence in photographs at a wedding, even though the external trappings are the same. I don't think every single image is going to be an example of this, however.</p> <p>A good example would be the formals, or family pictures. Everyone wants some, and it varies from very little to a lot, with most ending up in the middle. Regardless of pose, can you say that a group of people smiling at the camera reveals their true selves? These are photos about people, and people want these photos. I know there are some people who don't, but they are (IMHO) quite small in number.</p> <p>It can also be argued that what would appear to be pictures about people are pictures of people, since just the choice of venue, dress and activity can tell a lot about a person or persons.</p> <p>In any case, wedding photography by a hired professional is business, and business rules apply--I would be very suspicious if someone I hired to do a job becomes too chummy too soon. I use my intuition, and not necessarily information gathered from chat or forced social contact, to form an opinion about my clients, which I use on the wedding day, as the event unfolds.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DickArnold Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Nadine. Monte Zucker taught me studio lighting setups some twenty or more years ago that I still use to effect. I was working for a paper shooting sports while I was doing weddings. I took that to my weddings and shot a lot of candids where people did not realize they were being pictured. I tried with some success to pre-establish a rapport with my wedding clients. I gave them free bride sittings in my studio when I could which helped communication. I wanted them to know I was there to serve them and relax them enough so our wedding day communications were friendly and easy. I never took charge and made the photography the centerpiece of the wedding. I thought I was there to record it not run it. All this was about establishing communication with not becoming buddies with my clients. There are some things I did to relax people during formals although the big objective was to take enough pictures to have everyones eyes open. All film no PS. Monte also taught a lot about establishing rapport with clients. I never came near his capabilities both in the technical area and romancing the clients but I did my best. I did not really know him but I took classes from him and Clay, actually. In some weddings I did manage to take pictures OF people and I did it a lot in the studio where I did PR portraits. Get em talking and smiling. It also helped that when I did weddings I had had a lot of life experience that involved working and assessing people which greatly helped in assessing clients. Most of them were just nice people interspersed with a few mean ones and drunks. I knew I had communication when one of my brides yelled at me, Hey Dick, get your butt over here and take my picture. I knew she was comfortable with my presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Ian Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 <p>I have found that maximizing the interaction (as much as is practical) before the wedding is an excellent way to improve the quality of your imagery. The more comfortable they are with you, the more comfortable they will be while you are aiming $5k+ worth of gear at them. While this isn't by any means a 'requirement', as everybodies personalities are different, I find that if I meet with them, email back and forth several times between signing and the wedding, ask them to shoot me snaps of decor/flowers/cake/ etc. as is convenient so I can visualize, then attend the rehearsal, by the time time the wedding rolls around they are usually extremely comfortable with me -- And I with them-- I can see when they're stressed, or angry, and am comfortable enough with them to interact with the intention of helping. It can make the difference between taking pictures of a beautiful bride, and taking pictures of a beautiful bride who is happy and relaxed. -- As every pro here knows, that can make one heckuva difference in the final product.</p> <p>I think i like taking pictures ABOUT people, and OF their day.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_photog Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 <p>I remembered that one photog from the "Master Of Wedding Photographers" series said he didn't want to know a lot about his clients before the wedding. To quickly become a friend to the couple is a very important part of our job. But I don't think it is feasible to spend 3 hours at a coffee shop because you book the client either.</p> <p>Most of the time, I just meet with the couple for half an hour, sign the contract. The next time I see them will either be at their E session or wedding. Some I don't even have this luxury that I don't get to meet the client until their wedding day.</p> <p>There's nothing wrong with spending 3 hours to talk with the clients beforehand. I have never done so and I think many of my clients would rather spend the time watching a Harry Potter movie instead of looking at my face. You just have to be able to do it at the drop of a dime, to be friend to the couple.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagesax Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Monte was simply a fantastic poser, bringing out the best in brides through masterful lighting and posing. Clay is also very good, but had a different approach. Clay found a new style with the start of digital and ran with it. He's really a fantastic photographer. He often works with a few photographers at weddings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 <p>Jeez, the semantics of this thread is a head spinner. "Of, About, For, With ...", whew, never really thought about it that way.</p> <p>Personally, I take a different semantic approach ... because I am most interested in the <strong>"Human Condition",</strong><em> (which, BTW, is the subject matter of most poetry and music)</em> ... and a wedding is a good excuse to indulge that predilection.</p> <p><strong>IMO, a wedding is basically two things happening simultaneously</strong>. It is ritualistic play acting to one degree or another, and it is people being themselves because they can't help being who they are ... so, no matter how structured the "play" may be, the character of the subjects will reveal itself to the <strong><em>"emotionally sensitive eye."</em></strong></p> <p><strong>I've never thought discussions with clients to be of all that much value from a creative perspective.</strong> It is how people act in an immediate environment around people they know that counts ... not how they act, or what they say<em> to a stranger</em> at my studio, or at a Starbucks.</p> <p>Fundamentally, I see any pre-discussions as nailing down the mechanics of the wedding shoot, and little more.</p> <p>Of course, the demeanor of any initial exchanges reveals valuable information as to <strong>the potential chemistry between a photographer and client</strong> ... however, to tell the truth, I tend to be a Chameleon in those circumstances and adapt ... because I'm interested in all sorts of human conditions not just ones that match mine. Besides, that value judgement is more the domaine of the client than me. I just show the <strong>genuine interest</strong> I have for them and their wedding, and if they feel they really don't like me or my work, they won't hire me.</p> <p><strong>As to journalistic verses traditional </strong>... I no longer make those distinctions. There is the "ritual" to record, and there is that <em>human condition </em>to be sensitive to. So, I personally don't subscribe to a purists POV for either task. If one looks at the time-line of a wedding, it's usually no more than 25% structured or directed shooting (if that), and the rest is a free-wheeling hunt for the human drama playing itself out before your eyes all over the place, <em>if you have the predilection to look for it. </em></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus_procter Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 <p>I agree with Marc. The "Of, About, For, With" are physiological explanations of what we already did. If one is going to take truthful pictures of the bride and groom, you can't be focused on style, "Ofs, abouts, fors, withs", or for that matter gear pieces. The B&G are in the moment, and if you are going to be sensitive to that and capture that moment in a way that truthful and has lasting meaning, then you'll have to be in the moment too. The only way to capture a couple in love in my humble opinion, is be in love with capturing them. And just as romantic love between two people cannot be expressed totally in words, so the love between a photographer and the people he\she is capturing cannot be defined by "Ofs, Abouts, Fors, or Withs" or PJ or traditional, or Canon or Nikon or Leica, it simply is, and that may mean you don't even really know what your doing, you are going by your intuition, in the moment, to be truthful, just as the bride and groom and being in front of you, and that's when real magic happens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_wilson1 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 <p>Shoot the wedding, catch the beauty, the moments and the emotions and feelings. Not sure what any of the rest is about.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 <p>I don't know Dave, maybe a discussion on how to do it, or how to approach it? Awareness of different ways of thinking, or how to open yourself up to seeing differently.</p> <p>But maybe you are right ... I guess we could distill it down even further ... "Shoot the wedding, make money."</p> <p>Then Nadine can shut down the forum, and leave it at that ... LOL!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacob_a Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 <p>brides pictures are very interesting. many peoples are like to watching this. i'm also like it. the <a href="http://iwedplanner.com/">wedding planner</a> is arrange a videographers for cover hole wedding.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maira_sharron Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I don't think It needs to needs to be so complicated. The only time I usually meet with the bride (and sometimes groom) is during the client meeting. I dOnt do anything special other than regular conversation and maybe natural curiosity. I can usually gauge their personality at that time. On the wedding day I shoot the flow leading up to the ceremony. If a bride is a control freak it'll show. I'd shes all about her girlfriends, it'll show. If she has a good relationship with her mom, it'll show. During the portion between the ceremony and reception -- the on location photos -- that's a little more challenging, because they want their photos to look like they should be on a magazine. They want them to be a fantasy- gorgeous , stupendous, and something their friends and family will ohh and ahh over. They want their love magnified during the close ups and the scenic portraits to look like they are the only two in the garden of Eden. They want their bridal party shots to be unique and fun and creative. All this usually in 45 minutes or an hour if your lucky. So in that regard... You give them what they want whether or not it is OF them or FOR them. The reception.. It's back to go with the flow. That's how I do it at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuccisphotos Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 <p>I'm one of those photographers that really does like to meet with the couple and find out what makes them tick. How did they meet, what do they like to do together, what makes them laugh, are they the type of couple that will want oodles of shots of them laughing it up, or will they want more serious poses, etc. Is the bride totally in love with her dress? Is there a detail on it she just adores? Good to know so I can make sure I really capture that well on the day of the wedding. I also REALLY want to know about their family members and close friends. This isn't just to create a formals list, it's so that I can pick them out of the crowd easily that day, and knowing that for example Aunt Millie flew in from California and just had a heart transplant (no joke, this is a true story), I will be SURE to get several shots of her, because that is obviously a very important person to the couple that might not have been in the bridal party shots. That way when I'm going through the 1000+ shots from the day and cutting down the images to just the strongest ones, I know that even if the shot of Millie isn't the most compositionally compelling shot, I will keep it in the bunch because it is likely to be a very meaningful shot to the couple. </p> <p>Can I pick up on this stuff the day of, sure, somewhat, but really getting to know these details in advance is VERY helpful. I make a note of them on my day-of-wedding notes. I make flash cards of all the names of the immediate family members and try to do so for the bridal party members as well. If I am able to get a shot of them from facebook, I add that to the flash card as well, along with any other pertinent details I should remember. <br> Yes this is a lot of "extra" work. But every couple I have done this for has reacted very positively to it, as well as their family members. They are always amazed that I am referring to them by their names right off the bat, rather than just saying mom and dad, ma'am, sir, brother, tall girl on the left, or the lovely, HEY YOU!!!<br> Also, getting to know them gives me some great material for my blog post after so that they are a bit more personalized.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maira_sharron Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 <p>More power to you Vail :-) I'm sure that your clients are really happy with your approach, and it shows how engaged you are in your business and the people of your business. You will be a huge success with all the preparation you put into your weddings, and your enthusiasm about it -- it's admirable.</p> <p>I'm more on the quiet side, and I am absolutely horrible with names...and tell my clients this right up front. Because I am quiet does not mean that I'm in touch, however. I'm sensitive to emotion - all kinds ... a people watcher... read body language.</p> <p>I believe it is entirely possible to capture who the bride is without even having met her prior to the wedding. You don't need to know history to capture the essense of their personality, imho. Sometimes, the person they portray themselves in "getting to know you meetings" to be is who they wish to be, rather than who they really are. For better or worse, I endeavor to capture who they are more so than what they want (with the exception of the on location photos -- where, of course, love abounds, etc. etc. etc.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_lee14 Posted September 27, 2011 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 <p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6221458">Maira Sharron</a><br> Love your style.<br> So what do you say or ask in order to "make the bride open her window and allow the sun to come and light her up"?</p> <p>What do you say or ask in order for the bride to "open her soul and allow you to share her joy and happiness with her"?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuccisphotos Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Maira, I too am horrible with names, hence the flash cards. There is nothing wrong with being quiet. Just a stylistic difference. Some clients would rather that their photographers be a fly on the wall who is neither seen nor heard. That is totally my husband's shooting style. I on the other hand am often right there in the middle of the dance floor with them. It results in totally different shots. Wathcful waiting though of body language is still key. I find the most important thing is to respect the client's wishes and stay true to yourself. From what I have seen on the forum your stuff is fabu. So what you are doing is definitely working for you. I would just be sure when letting clients know up front that you are bad with names that you couch it well so that it doesn't read as a negative about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maira_sharron Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 <p>Vail -- thank you for your kind comments...</p> <p>Mike -- Ah, you're a poet at heart ;-) </p> <p>I don't say those things to the bride. I talk to them about angles and lines. I will tell the bride to arch her back - elongate her neck - or whatever needs to be done to create a pretty line. Of course, I'll preface it by saying -- you have such a gorgeous neck - I want you to be aware of that - stretch it a little as you tilt your head. I'll provide an example of me tilting my head normally and then tilting it by elongating it a bit. or...you have such beautiful feminine curves -- or you have stunning eyes,. and give examples of ways that I want them to stand with some exagerration in the lines, which may not feel natural to them, but as I'm shooting, I'm telling them how beautiful it looks and how gorgeous she is, and I'll show her a sample. They see that it works and then become all America's next top model on me (smile)</p> <p>This is why it's not really "of" them but "for" them. During the closeups, I put one or the other in charge of that portion of the shoot. I'll say to the groom, "okay, you're the boss in this segment -- I'm going to shoot for about 60 seconds and i want you to nuzzle up to your bride, express your love by caressing her face, tilting her head toward you, kissing her nose -- whatever you want it to be" Some people are better at it than others, but more often than not, these are better than the shots where I say, "now put your lips against her temple" because there is some movement that is but isn't directed by me.</p> <p>I would have to say that in 95 percent of the scenic, on location, shots -- are "for" them. It's not possible (for me) to capture an intimate moment or an open soul during this portion. It's only possible (for me) to make it look like one. I would have better luck capturing an intimate moment or a soul baring expression during either the getting ready or reception shots.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_lee14 Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 <p>Wow this is a whole new language.<br> I'd love to see examples of the poses that go with these words.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now