Wedding Photojournalist

[reaction]

I stumbled on this site "Wedding Photojournalist Association". They have some strict rules

WPJA members should not have more than 25-35% of the wedding images on their web sites from the following combined categories*:

Portrait (photographer has control of the posed situation)
Set-Up (subjects faking a moment or actions prompted by the photographer)
Camera Aware (subjects staring into the camera)
Details (flowers, cakes, rings, tables, gowns, shoes)
Manipulated Images (pictures heavily altered with software: sepia, selenium or other toning, selective tinting, soft-focus effects, vignetted edges, desaturation, texture overlays)

That means 70% of your wedding pics will be candids? Sounds a bit wierd to me, then I'm not a photographer. But I thought it may be interesting to discuss. But wouldn't a WPJA wedding look like one with only a 2nd tog and no main tog?

[mcmahong]

That does sound strange, but is a Wedding Photojournalist different from a normal Wedding Photographer? If their job is to document a wedding ceremony, then I could imagine their sites would be predominantly candid (or moreso journalistic) in nature. If there were too many camera aware shots, then it wouldn't really be a telling of a story as the day happened.

I don't know if I make sense there.

[JM Tran]

sounds like a load of shite to me, we have already had a discussion thread on this already on AP not long ago

[ricktas]

Interesting. Go grab today's paper and look at how many of the photos taken by photojournalists, have the subject either looking at the camera, or avoiding it on purpose (court house steps etc).

Most people are very aware the journalists and photojournalists are there.

The ones that are probably true photojournalism, are the ones taken during times of unrest and conflict, public gatherings etc. Maybe Weddings truly are the start of unrest and conflict..hehehehe

[mcmahong]

Interesting. Go grab today's paper and look at how many of the photos taken by photojournalists, have the subject either looking at the camera, or avoiding it on purpose (court house steps etc).

Most people are very aware the journalists and photojournalists are there.

The ones that are probably true photojournalism, are the ones taken during times of unrest and conflict, public gatherings etc. Maybe Weddings truly are the start of unrest and conflict..hehehehe

I would debate that a lot of those newspaper shots aren't real photo-journalism... just headshots of a subject. There are a lot of posed shots like that, I suppose. My favourite is always the farmer standing in the middle of a dried-up paddock or leaning against a gate gazing forlornly at the clear skies.

Photojournalism exhibitions are always fantastic examples of what the art truly should be.

I like your last quote... very funny.

[ricstew]

Why would you want a whole lot of candid snapshots for your wedding photos?? especially if you are paying the photographer.......