The Photo-journalistic Approach

[James 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?

I know you didn't say that Jackie. You did say PJ style was "a big load of crap" though, and then continued with a list of sweeping statements about people who shoot that way. OK, maybe that's true in your experience.

I was simply making counter statements to show how it depends on your view.

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

Meh, if someone wants to shoot only with natural light, or only with studio flash, or only with a 50mm 1.4, who are you or I to question that?

[Sakhi]

There has been a lot of points raised, and I thank you all for taking the time to reply.
Personally, I have learned a number of things, and will apply them in my business which I'm hoping to grow further.

One point bugs me, and I would love some thoughts on it:

As I understand it, and this is in the realms of wedding photography, the photo journalistic approach means that you walk in, say hello, step into the background and snap away as people go about their business.
Technically, it should mean that you should know your client and their set up, and from that construct the story of the day through pictures. That's my understanding of what the job of a photo journalist is about. (correct me if I'm wrong)
I find that there is a certain level of haphazardness in the work of those who advertise themselves as using the photo journalistic approach. There are some brilliant shots that are emotionally rich, and I know you couldn't get them by any other means, but in between those, there are many that are just random and meaningless.
So the question is: Doesn't relying on this approach leave a lot to chance?
There are many couples that I have photographed that would've just drunk themselves silly and all I would've had at the end of the day were photos of them passed out. And there are the shy couples who would've just sat there and not even looked at each other. So really, not every wedding can be photographed in this manner.
I personally approach a wedding in many styles. I do the candid shots because there are certain things that I wouldn't be able to get any other way. But at times, I do step in and instruct the client on where and how to stand when I want certain shots, because I don't expect them to walk into the frame when and how I want them. I do use available and natural light (which I love), but I also use creative lighting when I'm working a particular shot (which I also love).
I believe to achieve an exciting and artistic collection of photographs that you can present to your client, you need to approach a wedding with many different styles.
When you visit a website and see that the photographer has taken only the one approach (what ever that is), there seems to be a certain flatness to the work as a collection.
As wedding photographers, we are hired to capture the day in all its essence, and with such a dynamic subject, you can not apply one approach.

[Jules]

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

I suspect in a lot of cases the comment that "I only ever use natural light" is being used in place of the more honest "I'm not confident with artificial lighting setups yet". That being said, there are certainly photographers (and very good ones) for whom the natural-light only approach is a decision based on experience and aesthetic preference.

As to the PJ issue, I figure clients should choose their wedding photographer because they like the photographer's style and personality, not because of the term the photographer uses to define their style (let's leave finances etc. out of the equation for the moment).

[I @ M]

I find that there is a certain level of haphazardness in the work of those who advertise themselves as using the photo journalistic approach. There are some brilliant shots that are emotionally rich, and I know you couldn't get them by any other means, but in between those, there are many that are just random and meaningless.

I think that you have answered your own question with that bit right there.

Are all photo journalist wedding photographers crap?

Clearly the answer is no.

Are all wedding photographers that don't shoot in a photo journalistic way truly excellent and remarkable?

Clearly the answer is no.

It is the ability and the vision of the photographer that produces the goods, not one particular style or another and I am sure that if we look hard enough we will find some shining examples of each style well represented in the market place. Some might even appear on AP from time to time.

[James T]

.. in the realms of wedding photography, the photo journalistic approach means ...

Whatever you want it to mean I think. It's solely a marketing term, if you think your clients will interpret it the same way you do, and as a positive point, then that's what matters.

I find that there is a certain level of haphazardness in the work of those who advertise themselves as using the photo journalistic approach. There are some brilliant shots that are emotionally rich, and I know you couldn't get them by any other means, but in between those, there are many that are just random and meaningless.
So the question is: Doesn't relying on this approach leave a lot to chance?

That'll be the poor photographers, and/or your interpretation of the work. They're especially hard to view as an outsider, because it's wedding photography, and unless you're the one getting married - the photographer doesn't care what you think of the photos. Just like photos of other people's kids bore me to tears.

So really, not every wedding can be photographed in this manner.

They can, you'll just end up with different shots at the end of it. If everyone is hammered, I'm not sure how posing them makes much of a difference.

I personally approach a wedding in many styles. I do the candid shots because there are certain things that I wouldn't be able to get any other way. But at times, I do step in and instruct the client on where and how to stand when I want certain shots, because I don't expect them to walk into the frame when and how I want them. I do use available and natural light (which I love), but I also use creative lighting when I'm working a particular shot (which I also love).
I believe to achieve an exciting and artistic collection of photographs that you can present to your client, you need to approach a wedding with many different styles.
When you visit a website and see that the photographer has taken only the one approach (what ever that is), there seems to be a certain flatness to the work as a collection.
As wedding photographers, we are hired to capture the day in all its essence, and with such a dynamic subject, you can not apply one approach.

As said by someone earlier in the thread, [EDIT: it was Redgum] a wedding isn't for you. There used to be a time when it was about two people getting married, and maybe they would hire someone to record that day for them in photographs. Now it's often (and this isn't directed at you personally) an excuse for a party and for a fashion photographer to come in and shoot for his/her folio.

Oh, and of course you can cover a wedding with one approach, there are far more dynamic and complex events were photographers do a great job of doing just that. Whether you want to or not is of course entirely up to you, or whoever is shooting the wedding. And you would hope the couple had chosen their photographer based on his/her previous work - therefore everyone ends up happy.

EDIT: or I could just have said what Andrew said.

[Sakhi]

Just a bit more about myself (which will put some of the points I made into perspective):
I am fanatical about what I do (but at the same time I am objective and try not to get lost in my own ways ). Wedding photography is not just a business for me, it is something that I enjoy immensely, it is my life. I don't enjoy photographing anything else.
I can even say that I approach it philosophically! (Considering that I have done some studies in that )
I started this discussion to test my points of view, and I must admit they have been tested
I want to deliver the best product to my clients and I must admit, you guys have been a great help in refining my disposition

[kiwi]

I know you didn't say that Jackie. You did say PJ style was "a big load of crap" though, and then continued with a list of sweeping statements about people who shoot that way. OK, maybe that's true in your experience.

I was simply making counter statements to show how it depends on your view.



Meh, if someone wants to shoot only with natural light, or only with studio flash, or only with a 50mm 1.4, who are you or I to question that?

Because it's a statement of fact. Do these photographers turn down all shots at night ? That's limiting and narrow minded

Can you shoot a wedding using just natural light - if course, also a statement of fact, every wedding ? No. Statement of fact.

I'm not questioning it, I'm just declaring it as it is.

[James T]

Because it's a statement of fact. Do these photographers turn down all shots at night ? That's limiting and narrow minded

Can you shoot a wedding using just natural light - if course, also a statement of fact, every wedding ? No. Statement of fact.

I'm not questioning it, I'm just declaring it as it is.

At the risk of boring myself, and no doubt many others..

It is not a statement of fact.

Why would they have to turn down shoots at night? Have you never taken a shot at night without introducing your own lights?

OK, if it's strictly natural light (I think unfortunately a lot of people on the internets mean available, or ambient light, when they say natural) it may make it tougher.

Even then, I'm sure I'm not the only person who's taken portraits by natural light in the middle of the night.

If a photographer didn't take on shoots at night for whatever reason, I would hardly call them narrow minded because of it. Do you shoot every subject in the world? No, are you narrow minded?

Can you shoot every wedding only by available light, of course. Statement of fact.

I would say it's far more narrow minded to not see other ways of shooting.

[kiwi]

Well, I'll stick with my opinion, but I respect yours is different

[Sakhi]

Just in reply to points made by Redgum and James T.

What is a wedding? A religious event that is celebrated by different people in many different ways. Certainly nothing to do with photography...

Firstly a wedding ceremony is not only a religious event, it is a cultural event and a legal contract. Does this have anything to do with photography. The wedding is the subject of the photographs you are hired to produce, how could the definition of it be irrelevant?
From your photos I am guessing that you are both photo journalists, so I'm asking you how could the background of the subjects you are assigned to shoot be irrelevant?

...They're especially hard to view as an outsider, because it's wedding photography, and unless you're the one getting married - the photographer doesn't care what you think of the photos...

You're the photo journalist; don't you see a problem with this statement?
You try to capture the essence of a subject so who ever is looking at your photos is not only being informed, but is also moved, whether they were related to the subject or not.

James, you made the point of not being able to photograph a drunk couple. Well, you actually stop them before they get to that point. Not directly, but through getting them busy with other stuff so they don't drink.
I just can't see one of those photographers who become the fly on the wall dealing with any of the problems that I have to deal with every now and then.
You might say that it shouldn't be the job of the photographer to deal with these things. Well, what do you go through to get the shot?

I'm sure that in your field of work there are people who are getting away with supplying substandard work, but passing it off as some new trend.

I hold great respect for photo journalists, but the feeling I am getting is that you two (photo journalists) don't have much respect for wedding photographers.
Our work is not a walk in the park. To cover a wedding properly, we are on the go, non stop, for hours on end. We have to be creative under pressure (so we are not doing the same shots every time), and we deal with lots of ....... on the day.

[James T]

I hold great respect for photo journalists, but the feeling I am getting is that you two (photo journalists) don't have much respect for wedding photographers.

I have every respect for wedding photographers, just as much as any other group of people anyway.

For the record, photojournalism forms a very small part of my photography. I shoot a lot of different stuff (including the very, very occasional wedding) and I would estimate on more jobs than not I will use flash at some point.

@Kiwi, that's cool.

[atky]

This thread is showing that some photographers egos need to be treated. I hope an ego as large as some of the ones on show are not prerequisite to being a photographer.
Go back and read some of your posts, I think some humility would be a good acquisition for some of you.

[jasevk]

This thread is showing that some photographers egos need to be treated. I hope an ego as large as some of the ones on show are not prerequisite to being a photographer.
Go back and read some of your posts, I think some humility would be a good acquisition for some of you.

Very well said, was wondering how I might articulate this... Thanks for doing it for me

[James T]

This thread is showing that some photographers egos need to be treated. I hope an ego as large as some of the ones on show are not prerequisite to being a photographer.
Go back and read some of your posts, I think some humility would be a good acquisition for some of you.

I don't see any big egos being thrown around. Just people discussing styles and methods of photography.. not even their own necessarily - hard to have a big ego about a style you don't shoot in.

[winterstorm]

Interesting topic and even more interesting answers. I do a bit of both. I cant help but want to stop, pose and interact with people. It feels unnatural to me not to. I have recently been doing some theatre and theres no interacting with the subjects there at all, I have to keep saying to myself "keep your mouth shut!!! Dont say anything!!!" so I find that harder than asking them to move their head a bit here and there.

For weddings, we always go with a pair of photographers, one generally will prefer to do the candid style and one, more formal. Its worked so far.

[Sobriquet]

Although it appears Longshot was indeed taking a photojournalistic approach to wedding photography way back then, I have to say many photographers 20 years ago were not. It was very posed even at a couple of times during the ceremony, priests & celebrants still expect me to want to pose the signing images! I love more natural looking images and appreciate the contribution the labelling 'photojournalism' has made toward loosening up the expectations of what wedding photos should look like. The story telling albums are great and being able to take many more images means you can move away from a structured shot list to look for more artistic images.