The Photo-journalistic Approach

[I @ M]

In post #11 I did ask nicely so please be advised ----

Warning: personal remarks or attacks on other members WILL result in either temporary or permanent bans

[Longshots]

I cant quite believe anyone is serious when suggesting that the use of the word photo-journalistic was a recent adaptation in the wedding photography business !

When I shot weddings this was my preferred style. If anyone wanted to put a title to what I was doing, that would have been the description used at the time. I personally never use or usedd the phrase/word to market myself. And I started shooting weddings over 30 years ago. (Now I rarely shoot them. ) I suppose the word "recent" or a "few years ago" is as subjective as the understanding of what "photo-journalistic" is !

I would rarely offer any instructions during or before the event. A meeting with the clients prior to the event would answer many of my questions, a recce of the venue/s, and a meeting with the minister/etc would give me all the information I would need, to ensure that I wouldnt need to pose any of the event.



85 - 90% of all shots were shot as a record of how the event happens. I would rarely interject or interrupt the flow of the wedding. The other part of the percentage 10-15% was the inevitable family groups. To answer the original quesiton - yes it can be done and its not rocket science, its simply being the "fly on the wall", and capturing those moments in time that tell the story of the event.

I'm well aware of many colleagues who currently shoot in this style, some of them master craftsmen of this genre. It isnt something that people just start doing, its like many things, it takes time to polish. It is difficult and you do need to practice to achieve a top standard.

[JM Tran]

disappointing William, if you had 'coined' the term 'story-book telling' way back then, like Gary Fong did as his way of labeling 'wedding photo-journalism', you would have made squillions by now

I cant quite believe anyone is serious when suggesting that the use of the word photo-journalistic was a recent adaptation in the wedding photography business

oh but there are many, many of those new wedding photographers entering the market and using that term even stating it on their websites and bio etc. Ten years ago when I began to show an interest in photography I had never heard that time being used in weddings, not until the last 2-3 years being thrown around.

[James T]

LOL, are u serious with that LED panel comment?

you obviously missed the smilie at the end of that line Jackie. Only half serious maybe. Were you serious with your comments? There are far better shooters than any of us, who use solely natural and available light..

Do a lot of weddings and fashion James?

A bit by request, generally do my best to avoid it though.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Sakhi, the fundamental point of a wedding really is something that varies for each couple as well ; For my wife and I , we had been living together for years already - the wedding was more or less a way to formalise what we already had and a chance for everyone else to celebrate. For the newly weds after eloping, the emotional investment differs. For newly weds after a tumultuous month together who made a snap decision to marry, the dynamic would surely be different again. For newly weds of an arranged wedding, different again etc. You're right, you'd hope it would be a celebration of a couple's love for each other but love comes in many shapes and definitions and I don't think we should be defining it for the couple involved. Sure, as photographers, we can interpret it the way we see fit for the style of images we take, but it would be dangerous to pigeonhole our client's intentions generically.

My approach to clients for weddings (from very part time wedding photographer experience) is to show them what we've been capable of doing in the past and if that quality or style is what they desire, then all good
Whether you call it photo journalistic or not is really a moot point as more often than not, the client will not understand the term as photographers do (and even then there is some disagreement)
We've been told that most of our clients approach us (by the clients themselves) because the images we take look minimally staged if at all but in response to that, we do let them know that many of them actually are manufactured on the day. Some have said things like "we like your photojournalistic style" - that amuses us, but hey, if that's what they think, as long as they know what's involved, we don't care.

Photojournalistic, Glamour, High fashion , Candid - whatever term we use and whatever means we use to achieve it is irrelevant (ie LED light , natural light, repeated attempts at the 1 shot, 100% candid etc). It's what the client understands of those terms and understands of the outcome that really counts (and of course , the final product and how closely it matched initial expectations). Jerry Ghionis keeps winning awards for his photographic style and heck, if he calls it blah-blah-ism and that's what his client thinks of his style - then who cares what the real techinical term is!

[JM Tran]

you obviously missed the smilie at the end of that line Jackie. Only half serious maybe. Were you serious with your comments? There are far better shooters than any of us, who use solely natural and available light..



A bit by request, generally do my best to avoid it though.

No Im quite serious James, there are many, many situations when and where the wedding photographer simply cannot rely on available light as the sole bread winner, such as situations where there is harsh and uneven lighting and shadows, very dark areas where cranking the ISO still would not suffice, or backlighting against a window and so many miscellaneous factors. Even owning a boat load of F1.2 and 1.4 lenses would not help.

As I said before, the best in the world know where and when to use which type of lighting - I use available light when and where I can too. It also depends on your geographic standing, its almost impossible to use available light for a wedding in Adelaide or most of Australia in summer, but when I was shooting in London I thought - goddamn! The natural lighting here is sooooo good as its always overcast and ideal for that kind of stuff!

To me, using and mastering lighting and flash is not just simply having the big flash on top of the camera, but knowing how to use it for the right purposes, such as leaving a few wireless flashes around a reception or a bed room to create a nice smooth ambient feel. Same goes for what I mentioned about the better wedding photographers compared to the rest of the scrum - they use and apply the 'PJ style' where and when necessary.

[Longshots]

As I said before, the best in the world know where and when to use which type of lighting - I use available light when and where I can too. It also depends on your geographic standing, its almost impossible to use available light for a wedding in Adelaide or most of Australia in summer, but when I was shooting in London I thought - goddamn! The natural lighting here is sooooo good as its always overcast and ideal for that kind of stuff! .

Oh I so had to laugh at this Sorry JM, but I had the total reverse feeling when I moved from the UK to here in Queensland 20 years ago.

God it might be light, but its so bright ! And harsh

None of that easy to use overcast light which just wraps around everything. I'd say it took me a couple of years to really master the bright light and deep shadows you'll find in Qld. Every time I go to Sydney and Melbourne (and occasionally Adelaide) I just love the soft light those cities have - sooooo much easier to shoot buildings in any of those beautiful cities.

Knowing, understanding, and mastering the use of light is the key to photographic success.

[JM Tran]

mind you that was my first time shooting in Europe, and it was coming at the end of the miserable winter.

but u are very right about Brisbane, I hate shooting there as there is so much light and harsh shadows.

[Xebadir]

I think we are getting to the crux of the issue here with Darren's statement.

We as human's categorise everything. I am not exactly sure why our minds work in that way (perhaps its an evolution of the relatively simple comprehension, we just can't handle the boundless environment?), nor am I entirely sure if it is a good or a bad thing, but generally the world and everything in it doesn't work like that. Its quite clearly evident that there is a spectrum of opinion on whats PJ/whats not, and leaves us with a continuous sample of endless possibility. The fact is as Darren said, it doesn't actually matter what we call it, all that matters is what it is. Jackie's style is what gets him clients, his clients seek him out for the way he goes about it, and to be honest, If I needed my wedding shot and wanted something very unique I'd probably think he was worth every cent. Sure we may not like it, but his clients do or they wouldn't have chosen him. Darren's style is Darren's. Mine is Mine. Realistically, yes your style needs to have something that attracts the client, and this is like all art, it appeals to some, not all. In saying this, the number of over-charging wedding photographers who offer a certain hands off poor quality product drives me to despair, but in the end people will continue to go that way because the diversity is not there in the market and people have little other option that is visible to them. Its a blight on the industry I believe, that these people are associated with a professional group and yet offer substandard products and services for elevated prices, but then again, thats not unusual for Australia. I don't think however that these particular individuals are exclusive to just a PJ style though.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Heya John - not sure if you were referring to me or Kiwi Darren but if it was me - thanks lol (if not then I'll go hide now)

[kiwi]

Heya John - not sure if you were referring to me or Kiwi Darren but if it was me - thanks lol (if not then I'll go hide now)

[Xebadir]

Heya John - not sure if you were referring to me or Kiwi Darren but if it was me - thanks lol (if not then I'll go hide now)

Arg, Sorry Dylan. Got myself confused. Like I would ever give Kiwi a compliment :P. All credit to you. If a mod could correct that then I wouldn't feel so silly.

[jasevk]

Heck, if you knew how to use available light, you wouldn't need your LED panels.

Sorry, this comment is not sitting well with me, I believe JM referred to the use of creative lighting... Sometimes natural light is simply not sufficient, and god forbid a photographer try something creative...

[James T]

Sorry, this comment is not sitting well with me, I believe JM referred to the use of creative lighting... Sometimes natural light is simply not sufficient, and god forbid a photographer try something creative...

Sigh.

Did you note any of the rest of my post? The winks, and the last line about over-simplifying?

Also, did you note the quote from Jackie which I was responding to? Sweeping statements don't sit well with me.

God forbid a photographer try to understand light properly hey...

[Chilli]

Sakhi have a look at this link, he's very popular and very few poses if at all http://www.josephmilton.com/

as to whether you like it or not, different pot of stew.

Love it, thanks for sharing that link..

[jasevk]

God forbid a photographer try to understand light properly hey...

exactly, quite often, as I'm sure you know... This understanding leads to the use of additional lights, reflectors etc etc. As for the winks and smiles, some people here use those to sugar coat passive aggressive comments... Sometimes hard to gauge which is true.

[James T]

exactly, quite often, as I'm sure you know... This understanding leads to the use of additional lights, reflectors etc etc. As for the winks and smiles, some people here use those to sugar coat passive aggressive comments... Sometimes hard to gauge which is true.

It was just a comment to illustrate how ridiculous Jackie's statements were. Suggesting a photographer should use flash / other lighting, is just as ridiculous as suggesting one shouldn't.

[JM Tran]

It was just a comment to illustrate how ridiculous Jackie's statements were. Suggesting a photographer should use flash / other lighting, is just as ridiculous as suggesting one shouldn't.

No offence, but I think you had misinterpreted what I had wrote. No where did I write you HAVE TO use flash/other lighting, can you please quote where I wrote that?

I simply said a good photographer simply knows where and when to employ the best and right amount of lighting, instead of sticking to one medium and be stubborn about it. Is that so ridiculous?

[kiwi]

I agree Jackie, I see statements like "I only ever used natural light", seems rather limiting and narrow minded to me

[jasevk]

I simply said a good photographer simply knows where and when to employ the best and right amount of lighting, instead of sticking to one medium and be stubborn about it. Is that so ridiculous?

JamesT, that's exactly how I read it, hence my post