Formals

[elsaspet]

No.:hugs: Just tired and grouchy I guess. I was kinda stung by some of Mysteryscribes words, but I get like that sometimes.
Sorry for the tanty.

 

[Christie Photo]

And the comment about weekend warriors...

That was me. Cindy... above all, I first want to apologize if you thought I directed this comment toward you. I have nothing but respect (maybe some envy) for you and your work. I hope you know that. You and your work have been my greatest inspiration in recent years. So before I can even think about any more discussion on "formals," I have be sure you know how sorry I am if I offended you.

Pete

 

[JamesD]

I was going to reply, but I don't think I'm going to now....

 

[Sharkbait]

No.:hugs: Just tired and grouchy I guess. I was kinda stung by some of Mysteryscribes words, but I get like that sometimes.
Sorry for the tanty.

No apologies necessary for the rant. I don't think anyone was meaning to criticize your work (certainly not me...I think your work is spectacular). I think the pj style is just so hard to quantify, that the line often blurs been mediocre pj and snapshot. It's only when you come across a brilliant pj shooter that the style really comes into its own. I'm nowhere near brilliant with the pj style (though I do think I'm pretty far above a snapshooter), so we rely on more of a hybrid style that's heavily pj, but still has posed and detail shots.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Let me join in... I didn't call you unprofessional at all... If you feel that I did I apologize. This is what I said

"If you don't do them I flat guarantee that within five weddings some one will be calling you unprofessional. "


and I meant if you don't do formals at all... That was the feeling I had from you post maybe erroneously I often do that...

Again I'm sorry if I offended you I did not do it intentionally. Nobody likes to stand in a church shooting endless friends of the bride... I personally have never been able to say no at the wedding. If you can I have great respect for you.

Again Im sorry if you feel that way and congradulations of the high number of weddings your first year.

by the way in addition the inspired snapshot wasnt meant for anyone in particular and I havent seen enough of your work to just YOU personally the comment was

I hear a lot about the photo journalism style and from what I have seen they are inspired snapshots a lot of the time.

Please not the alot of the time not all the time.... and if youi haven't seen shots from weddings by others here that meet that criteria then I guess I'm the only one..

Again I'm sorry I offended you .

 

[Alison]

Formals. Ugh. Mostly.

I find the request/desire for formals shots really depends on the region you work in. In Minnesota where I used to live the majority of couple saw each other before the ceremony and formals were done then. I actually really liked this rather than the rush after the ceremony which is typical here in NH. We did a shoot in MN last year and the formals were a ton of fun...we did the wedding party, all the individual shots with the bride and her maids, etc. We got a ton of reprint orders because she gave one to each of her bridal party.

Most weddings we keep the formals to under a half hour after the ceremony. We start with the whole wedding party and then dismiss them. Then do the family, dismiss them. They we are left with just the couple and that's some nice time.

That beind said. you're a member of the WPJA Cindy and I can't imagine your client base wants a lot of formals. In our business we have to offer quite a bit, it's what they expect. Aubrey is the "formal" guy and I usually get non posed shots while he does them.

But really they can be fun!

 

[elsaspet]

Again, I just want to apologize for jumping down people's throats. I do that sometimes when I read things when I'm too tired to really take the time to sit down and mull over things that are said.
I really appreciate all the kind words you guys.
I guess I get ansy on the PJ vs Traditional thing. Dang, there are so many great ones out there in both genres as well as so many crap ones.
Pete, I love you like crazy and know you never meant any harm. Mystery, I do appreciate the apology. I hope you will accept mine as well. Like I said, tired and grouchy.......
Hugs to all.
Cindy

 

[bigfatbadger]

Can I ask elsapet, when you started doing weddings, did you start out doing formals and move towards a PJ style, or is that always how you've done it?

I only ask because I can imagine that getting the formals is quite 'safe' in that you know you have some good shots that people will like, but probably not those great ones that you get from a PJ style. I can imagine though that I wouldn't have the confidence straight away to be sure whether or not I had great shots without doing formals?

Does that make sense?

 

[Reverend]

Personally, I really like the dialogue here (with obvious exception to the comment that offended elsaspet). I like to hear about how people feel about what they're doing....what they're tired of, and what they really love about the job.

 

[elsaspet]

Hi,
No actually I was a wireservice photojournalist when I got into the wedding thing, so I was already kinda "poisoned" against making people pose. It was a huge no-no.
Later, when I started doing weddings, I realized that I might have done reasonable well at wire BECAUSE I simply suck at posing. Not only do I suck at it, it has always just held a velveta factor for me. I grew up in a house filled with icky chain studio family shots, and I always hated them. When I married my husband, I ended up with these funny formal things, and my kiddos laughed and said how weird I looked. I did look weird. I had that standard "smile for the camera/let's get this over with" look, that I've seen a zillion times now. But at that time, I didn't know the about PJ wedding folks, or the differences between editorial wedding photography, formal, traditional, splits, or any of the rest.
I think there can be a happy medium for the bride as well as the photographer, which is simply to limit the number of formal shots. Again, mainly because I am a PJ/editorial wedding photographer, I don't have a slew of brides coming to me for family formals. I "pitch" myself as a photographer that will capture their day. If there is someone important to them, I want them to be sure to put a flower on them. I'll make sure anytime that flower wearing person is anywhere near the bride or groom, I'll have dozens of shots. Sometimes they don't even know I'm there, so I get all these great laughter shots, or tearful shots of them with their very special guest. Or a big hug. In other words, this neat natural moment, that can't really be captured crammed into an altar with 45 of their closest relatives. When I meet with a client, I explain this to them. And then I show them my very best attempts at altar photography. Then I show them the "moments". It's amazing what a difference it makes when you show them the difference, because..........they grew up in a house with the same velveta group shots........and they might not know the difference either.
This is not in any way intended to offend portrait/formal wedding photographers. Many brides love that type of work. To them it's traditional, a passing down of generations. I'm just trying to give the PJ bride some options.

 

[Christie Photo]

OK... I'm ready to jump back in.

I would find it helpful if we could have a definition of "formals." The vast majority of the formals I do are not at the alter... preferably not in the church. As for group shots, I do the wedding party and then the two families.

So while I do make a lot of "formals," I seldom get roped into doing a cattle call at the alter (although it has happened). I'm really happy when I get to have the couple for two ten-minutes sessions during the day, either outdoors or with some good window light. That's when I make the best composed and best selling formals. It's a nice, comfortable situation for me. I know just what light I want and have a loose idea of poses to run through. Every couple is different, so I am watching for something unique. I don't want to do cookie cutter work. I do like the control I have, away from all the noise and guests.

I will not do table shots.

I will not set up a "photo booth" situation at the reception, availing myself to anyone who wants a photo.

If I see things start to get out of hand, I'll pack it all up and put it out of sight. I figure I'm there working for the bride and groom, and when I feel I've finished my job, I'm leaving. Folks pay me a decent dollar for a family portrait. I'm not going to do this on demand of a wedding guest. If they've very insistant, I'll ask them what size print they want and quote them a price. It always works.

Cindy, you're making some wonderful bridal formals.

Like I say.... a definition may be in order.

Pete

 

[elsaspet]

Yeah Pete, that would prolly help, LOL.

(The following are just my interpretations of course):

Engagement Shoot=Funky Date Photos.

Bridals=Glam Shoots. Editorial in Nature (Editorial being set up, but attempting to look natural)

Wedding Shoot=Editorial on Details/Strickly Candid in all other regards

Formals=That Godawful pile of people photographed in groups, right before or after the ceremony, shot at altar of somewhere on church premises. The ones we try to get the tall guys in the back, and the kiddo up front. The ones that have a crapload of cousins in it.

 

[Alison]

Yeah Pete, that would prolly help, LOL.

(The following are just my interpretations of course):

Engagement Shoot=Funky Date Photos.

Bridals=Glam Shoots. Editorial in Nature (Editorial being set up, but attempting to look natural)

Wedding Shoot=Editorial on Details/Strickly Candid in all other regards

Formals=That Godawful pile of people photographed in groups, right before or after the ceremony, shot at altar of somewhere on church premises. The ones we try to get the tall guys in the back, and the kiddo up front. The ones that have a crapload of cousins in it.

Cindy you crack my up. I think Aubrey and I need to renew our vows so we can hire you to do some "funky date photos" :mrgreen:

 

[Sharkbait]

Bridals=Glam Shoots. Editorial in Nature (Editorial being set up, but attempting to look natural)

Wedding Shoot=Editorial on Details/Strickly Candid in all other regards

So that's what editorial means?? Huh, I've been trying to figure that out for a long time!

 

[Christie Photo]

...(Editorial being set up, but attempting to look natural)

ahhhh... and there it is.

THAT'S what I call a good "formal," or any GOOD portrait. All the control... content, lighting, etc., but looking natural... maybe posed, but not looking forced or contrived. Maybe just setting the stage and then bringing in the "actors."

That's why I say you make some very nice bridal "formals."

I would like to do the same with couples and group formals. Time dosen't always allow, but THAT'S my aim.

Pete