Truth or posed, interesting artice on wedding photography

[Peniole]

Ok lets hear it...what do you think?

http://www.slate.com/id/2167722/slideshow/2167823/fs/0//entry/2167816/

 

[Alex_B]

well, fits into some current discussions on this very forum

for me wedding photography always was more photojournalism plus some candids for the wall.

but that is a cultural difference between Germany and the US I suppose.

 

[Peniole]

Well I'm not from the US just stuck here for a while so I woudn't know. I'm actually considering Germany as part of my "where to next?", some good research going on.

 

[Big Mike]

Nothing really new in that article...just stating the opposite ends of the 'traditional vs journalistic' debate.

Trends change and successful photographers give the clients what they want.

 

[Hair Bear]

Really interesting but a little condescending towards the B&G and their requirements

I think we have to remember who the client is; they are paying for your time to be there.

If they want a certain style are we suggesting we should be saying 'err no, I want to do this style'? Good luck with closing the deal there.

I think it should be a balance of the two. Make the bride look fab, if this means removing the stress zit then do it.

It should also capture all those family members together in a formal way but only if the day and the people paying the bill want and can allow this. Non-intrusive other wise all they remember is being pushed around by the Photog and not their day

I suspect this is all down to how you agree to do the shoot when you meet the B&G and what their expectations are.

From my own personal experience, I was absolutely devastated to see my 1st wedding pictures. Presented to us on our return from honey Moon. Cheesy vins and crap frames with gold lines on, not well shot and tacky. But at least he got formals, right? Well no we hated them and ordered a minimum or half a dozen prints at most.

This time around I had a photographer friend/supplier to my business shoot for me. All b/w film at my request only 4 formals the rest capturing the day. Resulting in ordering nearly every shot as a A5 print (approx 130 shots) and lots larger for us and friends that got framed and are seen every day

What would you rather do as hired trigger?

insist on the formal approach, get those shots be remembered for not doing what was asked and get no prints?
Or
Shoot what the B&G want, but advise on a couple of group shots, record the day and get print orders?

In closing we all have to face facts here, we are moving into a digital age. Get on the train or get left behind

Imagine all the pictures from everybody’s camera on the day put into this

www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129

What sort of visual experience would that be for B&G, the customer

Sorry for the long post

 

[Hair Bear]

Trends change and successful photographers give the clients what they want.

Or exactly what Big mike said! LOL

Still look at the link though

 

[Peniole]

The link is amazing, Jaw dropping indeed.

I love the responses we're getting here so far, that's what I wanted in the first place, the article did seem condacending to the B&G I agree, but the only reason I chose it was to hear from people on here what they thought, and where they think the trend is going like Hair Bear.

 

[BAB]

I think the trend is going towards the "photojournalistic" approach and if that is what bride & groom's want, and why not as they are the one's driving the process. Two point's made in the article that IMHO are both correct and incorrect, are that when formals are done poorly they are really bad and that good formal photography stands the test of time. I agree with both, but those statement's also imply that the same is not true for photojournalistic style and that is dead wrong. Good photojournalistic style will also stand the test of time and can also be poorly done. Great photography can be great no matter what style is used.

 

[Big Mike]

It's certainly true that old school wedding photos were mostly just a posed group shot...boring by many standards today. However, those shots are treasured today because they are a record of important people on that day. People look back to see how they and other people looked way back then...maybe they remember people who are no longer with us.

From what I hear, it was common that those were the only shots taken by the photographer and that was it. Now, many photographers take hundreds or thousands of shots at a wedding.

From what I've seen and experienced...couples today want some exciting shots with lots of emotion and artistic influence...but they also want that posed group shot...and it's those posed group shots that end up hanging on their wall...and especially on their parent's wall. The journalistic shots end up in an album or in small frames on end tables for a few years.

If you look at wedding photography web sites...you will struggle to find the standard posed family shots...they just aren't exciting. But will certainly find the emotional, exciting, artistic shots. Actually, you might find plenty of shots where the B&G aren't even identifiable....they are just a random B&G in a fantastic looking, artistic image. I think this works great for advertising...because it's easier for a prospective client to imagine that their shots will look like that too.

Of course it's different in different areas, for different people and different photographers. The gist that I'm getting is that journalistic shots sell but posed family shots pay the bills...so to speak.

 

[JimmyJaceyMom]

I went to a couple of weddings where all night long the photographer was stopping the bride and getting the attention of the people around her so they could all look and smile. It was annoying and in my opinion, when someone knows they are getting their picture taken, most people(me) don't make a genuine face at all. Sort of a deer in the headlights or a 'oh god, not a camera' smile.
I like the other way because it's like they don't even know you're there and then when the wedding day is all gone they're so surprised at what you got and the expressions are real because the moment is real.

 

[seesaw]

I went to a couple of weddings where all night long the photographer was stopping the bride and getting the attention of the people around her so they could all look and smile. It was annoying and in my opinion, when someone knows they are getting their picture taken, most people(me) don't make a genuine face at all. Sort of a deer in the headlights or a 'oh god, not a camera' smile.
I like the other way because it's like they don't even know you're there and then when the wedding day is all gone they're so surprised at what you got and the expressions are real because the moment is real.

I completely agree. I was told by the photographer at my own wedding to pause and turn back towards him as I was walking down the aisle. It was suppose to be a moment between me and my dad, but he decided to butt in. I was very upset, and my requests were completely ignored. So I agree with above posters who give the b & g what they want, and throw in a few traditional ones.

 

[Big Mike]

There are, of course, two (or more) sides to that.

On one hand, yes it can be annoying to have the photographer be so intrusive and interuptive.
On the other hand, when looking at the photo after the wedding...it's usually so much better to have to people looking at the camera. The exception is when they are looking or interacting with someone (or something) else that is in the image and that it's telling a story. I see a lot of photos where the subjects are looking out of the frame and they just look like cheap snap shots.

Further to this...a good photo journalistic photographer will try to get shots where the subject is interacting with someone or perhaps where their expression is telling a story. A poor one will just get shots of people that aren't nearly as interesting.

A photographer who is not so journalistic might catch their attention and then snap the photo. This give a photo where the subjects are engaged with the camera and therefore engaged with the viewer. The trick is trying to accomplish this without being a nuisance to people.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well Im that old school photographer but It isn't quite that bad. In the forties and fifties after the posed shots the photographer generally left. That is true. Then came my generation a melding of documentary and truly old school. Which is exactly what I plan to do again on june 28th. What it was is we go to the church about an hour before the service. shoot the bride and groom dressing. People like the women with the registration book ect.

Everyone walking into the church, and usually try to do the walking out if they don't come out in a herd definitely the bride an groom leaving also few shot during the wedding.

Groups after of course, then the bride and groom cutting the cake and all that bs.

Now somebody answer me this. If unposed is such a big deal now, how do you get the bridal party together. Like all the men on a bridge for instance. You mean they all just decide to go there at the same time. Maybe your poses are less formal but I think if you get those kinds of shots at all they are posed.

 

[Alex_B]

Like all the men on a bridge for instance. You mean they all just decide to go there at the same time.

Well, there are ways to attract males all to the same spot at the same time ... :mrgreen:

 

[Big Mike]

Now somebody answer me this. If unposed is such a big deal now, how do you get the bridal party together. Like all the men on a bridge for instance. You mean they all just decide to go there at the same time. Maybe your poses are less formal but I think if you get those kinds of shots at all they are posed.

That's why I think that most of the self proclaimed 'photo journalistic' photographers really aren't all that journalistic (as in hands off). It's a mixture of posed and unposed...maybe directed is a better term than posed.