It seemed to me though, that a lot of what is printed is actually very confusing for potential brides and grooms looking to book a professional wedding photographer.
Notice that the end of the last sentence was "professional wedding photographer" the emphasis on the word "wedding". Although there are lots of great photographers out there, I think it's important to sort out just who is who and what is what!
Let me explain: Knowing what I know as a wedding photographer, I would never book anyone to shoot a wedding that was anything other than a full time wedding photographer. Those photographers who's sites have buttons leading to links for "commercial, portrait, corporate or any other kind of work are not professional wedding photographers in my humble opinion.
A professional wedding photographer is somebody that earns a living from shooting nothing but weddings one hundred percent. I'm sure there will be tons of photographers that would disagree with this statement but to me it's simple to understand.
If you bake cakes all week and shoot weddings at the weekend then you are an amateur wedding photographer. If you fix cars from Monday to Thursday and shoot weddings on a Friday and Saturday then you are an amateur wedding photographer. And if you use a camera to shoot news articles or fashion or corporate commissions all week long but shoot weddings at the weekend then you are an amateur wedding photographer.
The reason is simple: weddings are like nothing else. they are not like shooting sport or fashion or corporate or news or anything else and they come with a very specialized set of problems.
So to get back to the start of this post: the first thing for a bride and groom to know is that the person or persons commissioned to shoot their big day is truly a "professional wedding photographer".
The next thing to understand as far as the B&G are concerned is to put into context the seemingly endless variety of photographers styles. So at this point I would like to attempt to clear a few things up for potential clients when it comes to actually understanding what those differences are and how to tell which is for you and which are not.
Lets start with the oldest and most recognized. Classic: This is where wedding photography went when it came out of the studio and onto the event itself. The old masters had to garner the kind of experience and skills that would make your average persons eyes water. lighting, large and medium format cameras, tripods, light meters and sundry equipment where the order of the day.
This kind of wedding photography required lighting and posing skills that is very rarely seen today. This style however is by no means dead and there are still a lot of photographers that shoot this way and in this fashion.
Classic wedding photography is for the most part very formal and the shots are carefully posed in lighting that is directed by the photographer whether natural or artificial. Arguably the most famous wedding photographer whose method fits this description is Monty Zucker.
The second style mostly advertised by photographers today is Contemporary : This style of photography is heavily steeped in photographic art and digital manipulation in the post processing stage.
The avant garde look of the final image can actually be light years away from the original and can have various digital treatments to produce the final look. like paintings they can be very hard to define and come in a variety of flavours.
The end result of the images will very much depend on the skill and the particular taste of the artist who creates it.
As for the shoot itself; the photographer takes control here to the extent that a huge part of the proceedings are given over to photography even more so than the old classic wedding photographers. The difference though is that the shoot can go from church to beach, street, city, or a mall escalator. The images can be really striking though, much like original artwork if you pick very carefully, the best person for the job.
Some five year ago I filmed the BBC documentary film Masters of Wedding Photography in the USA and Australia and had the opportunity to work alongside and film arguably the worlds greatest exponent of this style of wedding photography Yervant.
A word to the wise though: I have witnessed "final images" from some very well known photographers in this vogue that have been amazing but the rest of the images have been less than "works of art". Photographers like Yervant are very few and far between so if you are interested in this kind of coverage I would ask to see a considerable body of work from as many different commissions as possible.
Reportage or Photojournalist: Different names to describe covering the event as it actually happens. Now if it was that simple then that description would cover the whole term but it doesn't. This style of photography is probably the most popular at the moment as it comes with less to do on the side of the bride and groom than any other. The problem with this type of coverage is that it is stupidly attempted by so called photographers just starting out in this industry as the easy option.
They turn up with their kit with the attitude that if they shoot three thousand images they will have enough for an album. That may sound amusing but if a bride and groom have just paid the best part of their budget on photography and end up with this as a result then nothing but grief will ensue.
The truth is that this style of photography is without doubt the one most difficult to accomplish correctly.
I could share links here to websites of examples of this style gone wrong but there is so much of it that any bride or groom cruising the web is likely to have come across it.
This type of coverage is much more than someone showing up with a camera and clicking away.
It's about being in the right place at the right time. it's about anticipation. It's about available light shooting, even in low light situations. It's about much much more than being the owner of a pro-class camera. A perfect example of the right side of this style is Jeff Ascough.
The reality: Now that we have an understanding of the various plethora of photographic styles we can get down to the hard realities of wedding photography and choosing someone to cover the event.
It's important therefore to point out that there are endless variations of the above as well as those professionals who downright refuse to shoot outside of their chosen genre.
It's very likely that a bride and groom who appreciate the photographic skills of the reportage photographer would still like and expect to have the family group shots.
It's equally likely that the B&G booking the contemporary shooter will be looking for those "special moments" that are unrepeatable and unexpected.
So in my mind at least, even when, as a professional wedding photographer, you are booked on the strength of your photojournalistic or contemporary images it's important to strike a balance and be as flexible as possible in order to satisfy the clients.
No comments:
Post a Comment