Sharing your Photos

 The bride at the head of this column is Nichole: she and hubby Stevce just ordered a new album this week and it should be ready to deliver in a couple of days.

Today I posted them a link to the preview page and I thought I might share the link with you, to help you visualise what our most popular Coffee Table albums look like. Theirs is an A3 book (the most popular is the smaller A4) and it is also available as a square book. There are various cover options, including hard covers with photos front and back, Linen and leathers in various covers, with or without embossed lettering.

Unlike other online books, these are hand finished (even the stitching) with very heavyweight papers; they have UV protected pages - various end-papers are available and they don't have the typical 30 page limitations of most albums (Stevce and Nichole's book runs to 100 pages).

The company makes versions of  their books available to the general public, but reserves premium features for professional photographers and designers. Still, if you are having a "shoot and  burn" photographer at your wedding, this is an excellent company to make your album. 

If you want the professional inclusions, and professional design, I would be happy to consider designing and uploading the album for you - if the photos are of sufficient quality and resolution to complete a quality album it can be done quite economically.

Click here to go to the preview 

For more information about albums and photobooks, send me an email or phone number. 

Photography Style and your Wedding - Storybook and Fairytale

When I started this series about a month ago, I stated, quite boldly, "In general, we can agree that there are probably five reasonably distinct styles of wedding photography: Traditional (sometimes called Formal); Photojournalistic (also called "Candid" or "Reportage"); Contemporary ("Avant Garde" or "Moderne" - with or without the "e"); Storybook (AKA "Fairytale"); and Artistic". I shouldn't have been so bold!

The further I have gone in exploring the Traditional, Photojournalistic and Contemporary styles, the more obvious it has become that these styles are not really so distinct after all - not in their application, at least - and that "agreement" about the boundaries of these styles is not universal - nothing like it. But what about Storybook/Fairytale style and Artistic Style (see examples here)? 


Well, I have changed my mind - I have decided to say hardly anything about "Artistic" as a Style of photography... Because it is a meaningless adjective, a weasel word that belongs only in the lexicon of the advertising trade. Style never defines artistry - truly artistic photographers operate in many styles, and are rarely limited to any one style, or by any one style. If someone describes their style as "Artistic"  treat it as a filler-word and make your own judgment on their style. Look back over these posts if you are not sure.


When you are offered Storybook and Fairytale Wedding Photography many of my comments about Artistic style still apply - the description is more an emotion grabber than a useful description. But the idea can  have some substance: "Artistic" is really a  photographers' claim about the quality of their work, Storybook does suggest that they will take a particular approach to your photography...
 
Fairytales are about happily ever-aftering; and story books are romances... In both cases what we are talking about is a focus on the magical and romantic aspects of the day. On presenting the story of a perfect wedding - whether it turns out that way or not!


Like a reportage or contemporary photography, the Storybook photographer is interested in the passage of the whole day - less interested in individual photos except as they relate to the whole story.  Unlike his colleagues, he is not so concerned with making an accurate  record as he is in telling a fantasy tale in which the bride and groom are the leading characters - the Prince Charming and his Cinderella.  Imarry.org describes the fairytale wedding in this way:


"Fairytale wedding creates the atmosphere of royalty and romance. Let your imagination be your guide as you plan a fairytale wedding. There is absolutely no limit to the creative ideas you can incorporate in every aspect of the wedding...Planning a fantasy wedding is an awesome experience. There are so many fairytales to choose from and it can sometimes be an overwhelming task. The plan is to create an atmosphere of fantasy and enchantment. Imagine how the whole illusion of a princess bride will look in your wedding photography. It will be a wonderful wedding experience not only for you and your husband but all your guests as well."


Of course, when you have planned the whole wedding around a theme, all the photographer is doing is capturing the mood, decor, costumes and so on. But even within a themed day, there is a certain approach that highlights and reinforces the fantasy, and it can be applied to weddings which are not so elaborate.


Avoiding hackneyed images is the hard part, but a photographic style that utilizes soft focus techniques, dreamy images, flowing motion effects, ethereal images, floating veils and soft, dewy eyes, counterposed against strong "masculine" and protective images of the groom, can be fairly characterized as  Fairytale/Storybook Style.


My research for this piece included a Google search for Fairytale and Storybook wedding photographers - there are half a million of them! I trawled through the pictures for a while: saw a few castles, lots of couples walking hand-in-hand through fields, but apart from that, nothing that really stood out. 


My suggestion is that, if you are going to have a themed wedding, with the glass slippers, the horse-drawn carriage and the  ice sculptures, any quality photographer will do it justice. If not, then on the evidence of the photographs posted in their galleries,  a "fairytale" wedding photographer is not likely to add a lot to the day that all good photographers will not provide. - which is not to say that self-proclaimed Fairytale photographers are not good photographers; just that most do not seem to take photos which any different from non-fairytale photographers.


As usual, you will find a slide show of Fairytale and storybook style images to illustrate this article on Vimeo. Click here to see them, then come back and leave me a message in the Comment Box. If you like what you have read, please share it with your Facebook and YouTube friends.

Photographic Style and Your Wedding - Contemporary

This is the third in a series on Style in Wedding Photography illustrated by  slide shows on Vimeo.com.  The link for today's files is Contemporary Style Video and the link is repeated the bottom of this page. 


The articles on Classic / Traditional and Photojournalistic / Reportage styles of photography were pretty straight forward: there are associations for photo-journalist in the wedding community with clear definitions of what is (and is not) Photojournalistic photography; and Traditional Photography is very well established. Not everyone who says they are a photojournalist or a Classical wedding photographer sticks rigidly to the style - but at least you know what they mean by the terms, and there are standards that their work can be judged against

When we come to Contemporary Wedding Photography,  things are more complicated: there are no real definitions and no way to know what to expect - except not to anticipate anything very traditional - and even that may be too much to expect. Put simply, when you see the word Contemporary against a wedding photographer’s name, it might mean no more than "I like to do clever, non-traditional effects like you see in the wedding magazines that stop me getting into the Wedding Photojournalist Association”. 


I suspect few of these photographers could define “contemporary photography” much beyond saying it is more modern than that old fashioned traditional stuff.

Is that so bad? Probably not - unless your photographer is strongly committed to Contemporary Style or Avant Garde photography; then you risk getting a wedding album full of trendy pictures that are going to date very quickly as the next big thing in photography comes along. We wedding photographers are just as prone to get caught up in fads as anyone else, and today's new idea can soon become tomorrow's cliche. Thing is, we can leave our faddish mistakes behind - you’re the one who will have to live with them! 


There is such a thing as good Contemporary Wedding Photography, but it has to be more than just trendy shooting. 

Even good photographers who know what they are talking about mean different things by "Contemporary", and for many, the emphasis is similar to reportage/journalism: to treat your wedding as an unfolding story. They will capture events, feelings and experiences on the day, and present them in ways that enrich your memory and evoke emotion. These images allow people who could not be with you at the time to have an authentic sense of what it was to be part of your wedding day.


If that is going to happen, contemporary wedding photography has to be more than just a series of informal photographs; it involves creativity, effective composition, skillful use of light, and exquisite timing to capture strong visual and emotional moments. It also requires the photographer to have clear ideas about how the photos are to be viewed and to shoot with that in mind, otherwise their vision is very unlikely to be realized: "no prints, just files on a CD" is never going to do it - any more than a handful of random photos passed around the coffee table or stuffed in a shoe box. 

What differentiates Contemporary from Photojournalistic photography? Scope and inclusiveness. The way to understand Contemporary Wedding Photography is to think about Contemporary Art (of which photography is an aspect) more generally. 

Contemporary art is the art of today, and "today" is a movable feast. Writing as I am in 2010, it is the art of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I suggested that Contemporary wedding photography was defined by its scope and inclusiveness; consider: since World War II, we have embraced Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, Post-modernism, Minimalism and Feminist art. They have little enough in common, except perhaps a rejection of the "Modern Art" movement from which they evolved.

Improvisation, commonplace imagery placed in new aesthetic contexts, abstract colour-field painting, conceptual art, hard-edged photorealism and other elements may inform the Contemporary wedding photographer - but I am sceptical: I see little in most self-proclaimed Contemporary wedding photographers that sets them apart from their photojournalistic or traditional colleagues, except a tendency to add candid photographs to their traditional set pieces, or portraits and group photos to their candid coverage. What I do not see is the vast range and complexity of styles reflected in contemporary art or even in contemporary photographic art.

Of course, when the photographer either adds or substitutes the phrase  Avant Garde for Contemporary, or worse, Moderne (with that pretentious “e”) we should certainly expect to see something special. What we do see (generally) are ordinary photos with the camera held at an odd angle; images pointlessly distorted by the use of very wide-angle lenses; brides and grooms in places they would never go, in poses they would not normally adopt; odd colour shifts that turn skin green and the wedding dress anything but the gorgeous ivory or white the bride chose; and pictures “photo-shopped” to within an inch of their lives!

You will also see some truly beautiful images, quite breathtaking in their conception and execution: such images win prizes in professional competitions and find their way into Wedding Magazines, and while they have a place in the wedding album, they are more a reflection of the photographer’s personality, artistic vision or individual style than of the couple’s. 


Wonderful as they may be, and flattering as it might seem to say to people, “Oh yes, I was photographed by J. C. Supertog”, if those are the only photos you take home from your wedding, you may later regret not having a more honest, personal or complete record - after all, your wedding day should be about you, not about the photographer!

There is another aspect to Contemporary wedding photography, which has little to with art and much to do with fashion. Neither Traditional nor Photojournalistic wedding photography encompasses the kind of location photographs loved by the Contemporary school. A photo session in a forest, swamp or by the harbour or maybe in a gritty, dirty factory, fallen down tenement or graffitied lane- provided it is incorporated into the record of the day (not substituted for more traditional photos) it can add a unique flavour to the day’s photography. 


The plethora of ads in Vogue-type magazines, the TV and Movie ads featuring location shoots, creative,  high energy music videos - these all add something to the style, and they are so pervasive that many modern couples step into the role of high-fashion model or rock star for an hour or so with great joy: will these catwalk inspired images carry the same sort of memories and lasting emotions as the traditional wedding pictures? 


Perhaps not, but if the couple "owns" and embraces the experience as an integral part of the wedding day - if it is not just contrived for the photographer, the location shoot may come to mark their transition from single to married life in a less formal manner than the Ceremony or Reception - this is often the first time that the couple can really relax and let go after the stress (positive though it may have been!) of the their wedding day, and be their first adventure together as Man and Wife.

Contemporary Images from some Practicaps weddings have been posted as a slide show on Vimeo. See Contemporary Wedding Photography.Your feedback on the images (and on this post) are welcomed, as ever.

Photographic Style and Your Wedding - Photojournalism

This is the second in a set of articles that looks at different styles of wedding photography. The previous post focussed on Traditional wedding photography, and a video illustrating that style can be viewed on Vimeo. A separate set of slides has been written to accompany this post, also on Vimeo (Photojournalism files)


One of the most popular approaches to wedding photography is variously referred to as Photojournalism, Candid and Reportage. Where Traditional wedding photography is an extension of portraiture, Photojournalistic wedding photography is like editorial reporting. It is candid; images are unposed and the photographer tries to avoid imposing any control on the day. In this sense it is the opposite of Traditional Wedding Photography, where the intent is to control light, posing and the environment..

The role of the photojournalist is to capture images that report the wedding, images that, viewed as individual photographs or as a collection, evoke the the emotions of the day. In trying to achieve authenticity, the photographer tries to avoid imposing their ideas or interpretations on the parties and to this end aims to be unobtrusive, virtually invisible. This places restrictions on the kind of equipment that is suitable and where the photographer can place themselves - no artificial lighting, no reflectors, no capacity to remove unsightly beckgrounds, and very limited use of Photoshop after because that would undermine the "integrity" of the imagery, and photojournalists are committed to "Truth" in photography.

 In a sense, this is a style that has really only become possible with the advent of high-end digital equipment capable of operating in very low light levels. Until very recently, the best 35mm cameras shooting high speed film were the only cameras with low light level capabilities anything like those of current pro level digital SLRs - cameras with very fast lenses loaded with the fastest black and white films could approximate digital ISO levels with special processing; colour films never achieved similar speeds.

An odd consequence of this is that what was a form of photography possible only for highly skilled professionals with very expensive cameras and top skills in the darkroom is now attracts the least experienced shooters of all. 

Never having learned to handle lighting, posing and the rudiments of quality photography, they call themselves “photojournalistic photographers” and by blazing away with high-end Nikons and Canons they manage to come up with enough acceptable photos  burnt straight to disk with minimal retouching because to “tamper” with the picture would undermine the integrity of the image!

Do not take that as a criticism of the style, nor of the many very skilled photographers who truly ARE photojournalists - It’s just that I have met too many of the other kind lately - or rather, have been brought too much of their work in the hope that I could salvage something from it.

Because the photographer has so little control over the conditions in this style of work, it often requires extra time editing and correcting for exposure, saturation colour temperature, flare... but editing only elements which are not central to the story - that is important, because photojournalists are at heart, storytellers.

The first of these storytellers is generally thought to be Denis Reggie whose photograph of John F. Kennedy Jr. and Caroline Bissett Kennedy  after their marriage is a foundation image in the genre. He coined the phrase wedding photojournalism back in 1980 to describe a way of covering the wedding "in real time”, with respect for the natural ebb and flow of the day. The Traditional photographic approach, with its need to set up photos, pose people, alter the setting, light the environment like a stage and prompt subjects as to how they should stand or when they should smile, is obvious contrary to this approach.

Photojournalistic Wedding Photographers work as unobtrusively as possible to capture the “reality” of the event without becoming involved in it. Rather than setting up portraits, they seek out events that happen spontaneously to tell the story. A few are so committed to this philosophy that they will not shoot posed photos at all - but most wedding photojournalists provide at least the basic group photos that your Dad and Grandma want to see on their walls. Even here, though, they will often aim for a relaxed and fluid style, rather than more traditional set pieces.

Photographic Style and Your Wedding - Traditional

There is plenty of advice around telling you how to go about finding the "right" wedding photographer. Most can be summarized in two sentences: make sure you like their photographic style; and  make sure you can get on with them.  I want to talk about the idea of photographic style - a question I have touched on before, but from a different point of view.


As you begin your search for a wedding photographer, you will soon find people claiming to be a Photojournalistic wedding photographer, or a Contemporary wedding photographer (the most common buzz words at the moment) or they might identify with one or another style... Unfortunately, what one photographer calls Reportage another might refer to as Journalistic while other photographers might say it's "just" Candid photography.


Comparing  different photographers'  work, you might not see much difference, no matter what the photographer tells you! On the other hand, a particular photographer's style might be different to what you expect from their claimed style - especially if they describe themselves as "artistic". So this is the first in a series of articles to try to sort it all out. Each post will be supported by a slideshow of sample images on Vimeo.com


In general, we can agree that there are probably  five reasonably distinct styles of wedding photography: Traditional (sometimes called Formal); Photojournalistic (also called "Candid" or "Reportage"); Contemporary ("Avant Garde" or "Moderne" - with or without the "e"); Storybook (AKA "Fairytale"); and Artistic.


There are not many purists in the wedding photography field (thank goodness), so you will not find many Candid photographers for instance, who refuse to shoot formal groups...but there are some, so be careful.


I am going to deal with each of these styles in separate posts, starting today with the Traditional Style  and you can see examples of photos from my collection at  Vimeo Video stream.

Traditional Wedding Photography requires a time commitment from the Bride and Groom, and photography can come to dominate the flow of the wedding to accommodate the need to set up shots and pose subjects. The photographer’s aim in the classic style is to create posed photographs to be displayed in a portrait album. It is built around a “shot list” , a step-by-step checklist, to make sure every “standard” photo is taken (e.g. the exchange of rings, first kiss, signing the marriage register, walking down the aisle as husband and wife, family groups, cutting of the cake, bridal waltz etc.) together with specific pictures the bride and groom requests.


The photographer's role is to obtain beautiful, traditional poses capable of high print quality and to ensure this, they need to control lighting, positioning, expression, body alignment, the background, the way the dress flows, the relationship (physical as well as family) of different people in the various group shots. It is the photographer’s job to set up the shots and then direct, encourage, position, relax and animate their subjects to ensure they are seen at their very best. This takes time but the results are often timeless portraits ~ or portraits that are a reflection of our time and the photographer’s art.


Many weddings are formal occasions which is why this type of wedding photography has stood the test of time. With careful lighting and expert posing, traditional wedding photographers can create a lasting family heirloom of your precious memories.


We call it traditional, but it is a traditional that goes back only a little way in time. Until the late 19th century, people didn’t pose for photos on the wedding day at all. The well-to-do might pose for a portrait in their best clothes before the wedding. By the end of the century they might stop by the studio in their wedding clothes afterwards, instead.


At the close of the century, a photographer might be hired to bring his view camera on its heavy wooden tripod to the church - but you needed to be pretty wealthy to afford that, sort of like turning up in a helicopter instead of a limousine! Really, with equipment so bulky and lighting quite primitive, wedding photography was a studio practice - when it was done at all. Couples who did have a wedding photo typically posed for just one portrait. We didn’t really see wedding albums until the 1880s, which is also when wedding presents, neatly “posed” on a table, and the wedding party, started to appear in the photos.


It was only after the Second World War that photographers started treating the wedding as an "event". Freelance photographers, with their roll film cameras and the new “flash bulbs” started turning up (usually uninvited) at weddings; they sold their photos to the bride and groom and to the guests the same way as street photographers were doing - pay your money, take a ticket; the photos will be ready to pick up next week. In a sense they were the “shoot and burn” brigade of the day, exploiting lost-cost and immediacy of the new technology and (despite the low quality photographs that often resulted), putting pressure on professional photographers to start working on location.


Photographers who responded by bringing a lot of bulky equipment to the venue found they still couldn’t compete - they couldn’t capture the wedding as an event. They either exchanged their half-plate cameras and even their single plate Speed-Graffics for (comparatively) light, multi-shot roll film Rollei and Hasselblad cameras or dropped out of wedding photography. By the 1970s, 35mm was king, accelerating the evolution of wedding photography into the styles we see today, including the popular documentary and photojournalistic styles of photography.