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.

A Green Wedding

• 
  What I am sharing today is based on a note  sent to me by Lucy Thomason who posts articles for the event planning careers blog. This is her personal hobby blog, focused on tips to help people  organize a green event, use less energy and reduce their carbon footprint.
  
  Lucy assures me that this wedding actually took place in August 2010, between Engel and Dyer, near the Huron River in Ann Arbor.
  
  A lot of people would like their wedding to be eco-friendly, and over recent times it has become increasingly practical and affordable. Still, it can be a challenge.... this is what Engel and Dyer did -
  
  Accepting that they wouldn't be able to keep everything totally green, Engel and Dyer decided they would try their best anyway, and to make the day fun as well as instructive  for their guests.
  
  They held their wedding at a science and nature center, where guests were offered tours in the hour before they walked down the aisle. The tours featured water and energy conservation methods used at the center, like solar-panel arrays for electricity, solar-powered heating and water heater systems, and no-flush compost toilets.
  
  Engel and Dyer say they focused on "little details" that make a big difference:
  
  • Dyer's dress was an heirloom - a vintage green dress that had been her great-grandmother's in the 1930s
  • Her ring was made with recycled gold and had a beryl instead of a diamond
  • Her makeup was certified organic
  • Instead of rice, guests were given local lavender buds to throw in celebration.
  • At the reception, the tables were covered with local wildflowers and the foods were locally sourced
  • Leftovers and unused food were recycled (by sending to local farms) or reused.
  • They found a solar powered generator to run the lights and the audio system for the band.
  
  Despite their commitment, not every choices they made was the most eco-friendly option. For instance, when they couldn't find a local red wine they liked, they used a burgundy from elsewhere in the USA - but still a domestic wine. They did serve (local) Michigan white wines sparkling cider, however.
  
  They could have used paperless Internet or txt invitations, but Dyer felt paper invitations were important - but on recycled paper, of course.
  
  Can you do something to 'green up' your wedding day? Does all this inspire you?  If it does (and I hope it does) I wouldn't want to give the impression that it is simple - but Engel and Dyer managed it, and if you are prepared to make as few compromises as possible, you can do something for the environment, too.
  
  The best way to scale back on an event's carbon footprint is to cut back on the number of guests. Fewer guests mean fewer meals, fewer needs for centerpieces and other decor and fewer miles travelled to reach the marriage. That doesn't mean people have to be excluded - consider the option of broadcasting parts of the wedding over the Internet!
  
  Once you have the guest list parred back, The best way to reduce the impact of any event is to look at the life cycle of the different elements you use: where is that food coming from, how much energy is expended to produce it, how does it get to your plate and where do the leftovers go?
  
  While meat might take more energy to produce than fruit and vegetables, considering how far some fruit and veggies need to travel might give them a larger carbon footprint.
  
  Finally, consider the wedding professionals you engage - do they need to travel far to participate or can you engage local photographers, musicians, celebrants and reception houses? Does your florist grow their blooms locally? Can you have your photoshoot at a local venue rather than travelling a long way to a special location, then back to the Reception Venue? How many cars do you actually need, and do they have to be petrol guzzlers? How many of those meetings really need to be face to face?
  
  There is a great deal that can be done towards having a greener wedding; it need not be more expensive, and it certainly does not have to be a second best affair. Quite the opposite.

What is a Reasonable Price for Wedding Photography?

This a question I have touched on before in these ramblings, but having just revised my own package costs and added an "a la carte" option, I thought it might be time to come back to the How Much question.

Unlike some photographers,  I am quite open about my fees (the curious can click here - I find a lot of "the curious" turn out to be other photographers!) - I prefer to be up-front about fees for a couple of reasons: it cuts down the number of inquiries that are never going to result in business, it gives people a basis for comparison, and it lets potential clients concentrate on my photography, rather than on whether or not they can afford my services.

You would be surprised how often customers walk away from shops or merchants who are not prepared to put the price on their products. My wife, Jean is really hot on this - she simply won't ask "how much?" and while I am prepared to ask, I generally won't if there is someone else who is forthcoming about their prices.

Why? Well, you can't help being a bit suspicious about hidden prices (I can't, anyway) and the nagging feeling  that if you have to ask, it is going to be expensive. Then there's that sort of anticipatory embarrassment that says, if I ask and then say it's too much, I am going to sound cheap, or poor, or maybe I'll offend the merchant, or be challenged to defend my opinion, or perhaps feel humiliated.

All foolish, perhaps, but not a position I ever want put a client into.

So, what dollar value should you anticipate for your wedding photographs? There are plenty of places where someone will offer a simple answer to that question. Wedding Magazines, Catalogues and Directories always plump for a percentage of the total cost of your wedding, typically 20%, although I see 10% cited now and then. On that basis if your budget is $20,000 then photography would cost between $2000 and $4000. That may be helpful if you actually have a clear idea of your budget far enough in advance. Really organised people will, but how can you budget until you have some figures to work with?

Very often the process is well advanced with a great deal of money outlayed before a realistic budget emerges - "we have spent $xxx - how much do we have left?" - and photographers are not often the first person on the bride's list; we are often paid for out of what is left after the "essentials" have been committed - the Church, Reception Hall, Catering....the Dress!

It's another problem if the couple have different fiscal priorities to the people footing the bill. It may be increasingly common for families to share wedding expenses, and for the groom and bride to bear part of the expense - even guests contribute in some circumstances (which is why I offer gift certificates), but photography is a very personal decision and it can be hard if your heart is set on a particular photographer and the bill-payer wants you to ask Uncle Phil or that fellow who advertises "Great wedding photography for $33 per hour"

Ten percent might be reasonable if your base is $20 or $30K, but what if your spend is $8000? A photographer's fixed costs are - well,  fixed. $800per wedding is not going to cover insurance, samples, lighting, cameras, computers, other equipment, maintenance, depreciation, travel, rental, assistants etc. let alone their time on the wedding day and after, which means  that, for $800 or less you are going to hire either an amateur trying to make some pocket money, a student, someone with no experience trying to build a portfolio or someone who took some nice pictures on holidays and thinks this is an easy way to make a living.

No, that doesn't guarantee a bad job - everything might work out fine, but these (so called) photographers don't carry the back-up camera bodies,additional fast lenses, dedicated lighting gear and other fail safes to be able to deal with dear old Murphy's Law. And if ever the rule applies, it is on a one-time only event like a wedding. So part of what you are paying for is experience and resilience to deal competently - invisibly -with what might otherwise be a disaster in the hands of a week-end warrior. Should something go wrong you do not want to be left on your own - like the lass who phoned me last Friday looking for someone to replace the wedding photographer who let her down one day before her wedding. When something goes wrong, a professional has the resources and the contacts to rescue the situation (and yes, I was able to find her a competent photographer.... but I wish she hadn't hired on the basis of cheap and cheerful in the first place).

Another simple (simplistic?) approach to working out how much you should pay is to look for an hourly rate. While you will commonly see $50 or even $30 per hour quoted, the appropriate rate is currently $150 per hour. Be careful, though. Do not be tempted to say "I have $600 left, so I will hire the photographer for 4 hours." Which 4 hours? The ceremony is an obvious place for the photographer (that is about 90 minutes from when the groom arrives until the time the greetings, congratulations and group photos are done. Travel directly to the reception venue, spend 15 of 20 minutes prior to the formal entrance and you have roughly 2 hours left of the photographer's time. Unless you have your speeches, first dance, etc all clumped together at the very start, your photographer will have finished before the cake is cut or the bouquet thrown! No bridal party photos, no preparations, and a lot of the time shooting very little.

The other problem with working out what to pay on an hourly rate is that much of the photographer's work happens after the wedding day, and if you pay a bargain basement price, you offer no incentive to the photographer to invest the many hours necessary to complete the work. In fact, a pert-time photographer with a "real" job will not have the time to finish your photos properly - for every hour spent shooting, there is another three required to get you files to a professional, print-ready standard.

You need to be sure that the photographer will make a real investment in this post-production aspect of the work. It is where most of the "magic" happens - really, the photos taken on the day are only the raw material that a photographer uses to produce your wedding memories: $150 per hour over a typical 10 hour wedding day is really just short of $40 per hour over the entire period spent working on your behalf. A $50 per hour photographer finishes as soon as he gets home and burns your photos to a disk.

There has to be a better way of working out what you should expect to spend for the only aspect of the whole wedding day that lasts as long as your rings. Coming from the other side of the equation, this is how I figure it out what I think you should pay ...but  do I know what you can afford? Well actually, I do in a way....

We have been living through a period when people have been very careful about their finances. This should be reflected in careful decisions about just what my clients decide they really want in their wedding packages. I think that should give an insight into what is not just available, but both desirable and affordable.

So I reviewed all the weddings I have photographed over the last two years of the Global Financial Crisis, and listed the most sought-after products - the most popular combinations and types of albums, multimedia productions, enlargements and so on. I looked at the average spend, and the typical spend, which turned out to be quite similar. I was really interested to see what brides and grooms actually wanted.... what were their most valued products based on where they allocated their dollars. Since all of my packages are flexible (you can add or remove anything you want), that gave me a pretty clear picture of what people wanted and made sure they could afford. I also took the time to compare my experience with those of my colleagues. I discovered some items that I considered as "special orders" were actually becoming something of a trend...Hybrid albums, for instance.

And then I took this information  and translated it into new packages, returned to my suppliers, looking at what they and their competitors were able to offer that people really wanted.

Thankfully, I found that my main suppliers were already the best at what they did and great value, but I had to add a few new suppliers  to my vendor list and one has, sadly, been dropped - I have had to set up a new review system, too, to make sure I don't lose touch with the trends, the standards or the prices.

So, what should you be paying? I can offer my current package list as a good starting point for working out what you should expect to pay and what you should expect to receive. Not too many working photographers will have lower overheads, so cheaper is not likely to be better, and a lot of very reputable wedding photographers, especially those with high-cost studios to maintain and staff to pay, will naturally need to charge more - but not a lot more, I hope.

I am NOT saying that people who charge more than I do are overcharging, just that my fees may offer useful guidelines. And  I am certainly not suggesting anyone should drop their present photographer and come to me instead - I can handle only so many weddings or portrait sessions in a year; and besides, wedding photography should never be just about money It's about reputation, style, personality and your relationship with your wedding photographer. Those qualities  are worth a very great deal...something I have not been able to cost!

New Packages, New Pricing

Toward the start of the notorious Financial Melt Down, a lot of wedding photographers were anxiously wondering why their businesses still doing well. As the years dragged forward, many noticed that their clients were leaving it later to book and ordering a little less in prints and albums, but it was not a real problem for well established and respected photographers.

For more marginal photographers things were different. They started to lower their prices as business started to fall away, and we saw the rise of the "shoot and burn" brigade... it sounds like a bargain to clients not "in the know"  because it is so cheap. Which is also why it is easy for inexperienced and even second rate camera people to get into the market. Take the picture, burn the CD, go on to the next job - all care, but no responsibility taken.

Those of you who follow these rantings will know that I am not a fan - not because the service is automatically going to mean bad photos or even poor photography, but because the  photographer has no commitment to the final output - there is no quality guarantee and there is a lot that should make a bride or groom very nervous about just what is going to be on those CDs.

You will also know that I include Hi-Res files in my packages, which sounds like I am having a bit of a two way bet. Not so, as a glance here will demonstrate (Designer Pack).

From now on, as a way to encourage people to print their photos, were including $200 worth of prints in selected packages. In fact, all of our offerings have been revised. At the budget end, the price has dropped and free prints have been added, but the number of files provided on disk has been limited to 500 hi-res files.

All our packages have been radically revised and new products have been added - there's even an A la Carte Menu with clear descriptions and prices to help you build your own.

All the changes have been driven by what our clients have been asking for over the last couple of years. Our most popular collection of files, prints and album has now become a package in its own right. I don't think it will still be the most popular this time next year - the newer products are really beautiful, and compared with other vendors, relatively economical, and while the recession of the last 3 years might not have pulled business back, I suspect that growing confidence and good economic performances are likely to help brides and grooms decide they are gong to have the very best! After all, this is once and  forever.

Bride of the Moment - Bride of the Month

Love and Pride - Jenny on her Dad's Arm

It was a pleasant surprise, when, last April, weddingsnsw.com asked for permission to publish my photos of Ben and Jenny's wedding in their Bride of the Month section. Nice for Ben and Jenny, encouraging for me - apart from this blog and a little Facebook promotion, I don't advertise much. I have space on a few wedding directories, but most of my referrals come direct or by word of mouth. So an unsolicited approach like this is very welcome, and the exposure it generates for my photography can't hurt, now can it.

So...I am very pleased to share that the same honour  has just been extended to Sam and Angela (well, Angela, I suppose: Sam is hardly a bride!) Congratulations Angela, you are to be the NSW Bride of the Month - I haven't been told for which month yet (is is never in the month the couple weds - it obviously happens after the photos have been published). As soon as I am notified I will post a link here.

I wonder what it is that makes someone say "there is our bride of the month". It could be outstanding photography, or the great settings that we use for our pictures, or the efforts we make to avoid clichéd pictures and ensure each couple's unique day doesn't come out looking like every other couple's wedding.

Sam and Angela Go to Town

The truth is, it is probably something about the bride herself. What does the photographer contribute to that joyful, serene, anxious, elated, proud, worried, carefree vibe that is a bride's persona on her day? 

For us, it is about capturing those emotions without getting in the way, following the day without interfering with it's natural evolution, being carried along by its flow, directing without altering, highlighting it without changing who the bride IS and what she is experiencing.

Forget style and technique - what do they mean if you don't notice; and noticing is not worth much if you don't understand; understanding is useless if your don't have the temperament and the knowledge to interpret and present the essence of what you see, without trying to impose your photographic style on the couple's reality. Only then does technique comes into play, along with experience and the right equipment; but first things first: our Brides' images are special  because we do notice, not just how wonderful they are, but just how they are wonderful. 

Thank you Angela: enjoy your preview.

Sam and Angela at the QVB

Second Time Around

There is something special about a second or subsequent wedding. It has a very different emotional texture to the typical Veils and Vows new bride wedding day. Not second best, by any measure, but ...different.

Whatever brings a formerly married couple to the point where they are free to marry again, their history has a significant influence on their wedding plans, their ideas about what marriage means and how to live as a couple. It is a very different set of expectations to those of someone who has never had the experience of being a husband or wife.

Many of our clients are already living together, often with a young family, when they ask us to share their wedding day, but they are coming to place a successful union on a different level. That is quite different to the experience of the Second-Time-Arounders.

It doesn't matter what combination of events were involved, the end of a marriage is always touched by grief, loss and often, by a sense of failure or inadequacy. That is a lot to overcome, and committing to marriage again shows resilience, real strength, a willingness to trust and the ability to invest yourself in another person.

It isn't just the couple's attitude towards marriage that is different, but their attitude to the ceremony is different, too. Not all couples, but most, seem to want to simplify the day - to limit it to the essentials: the ceremony, perhaps a small reception, a few close friends. That could seem very limiting if you are a photographer.... No bridal preparation, no location or studio session, no engagement party photos, not albums or slideshows... in fact, some people don't think it's worth hiring a photographer at all.

In a way, I agree: a "Capital W" Wedding Photographer who is going to approach this as they would their typical bride and groom, or shoehorn their day into the 'tog's mold for a wedding shoot is not going to have much to offer. But this is still a really important event in the couple's life. Of course it should be recorded and it deserves the attention of a skillful photographer, but it has to be appropriate photography, too.

The budget is going to be different as well, and if the photographer is going to really honour the newly re-weds view, he is going to have to tailor his services and products to what really counts and what the day means to his clients.

Earlier this year, I started tailoring a special package for people about to enter marriage for the second time. So far we have been able to work with people who had been widowed, others who have been through a divorce, and the idea of "the package" has had to be interpreted pretty loosely; there are just so many individual differences. But there are a few things that are consistent for our Second Time Around Weddings.

First, we charge a little less, mainly because we spend less of the day with our couples.

Although we strongly promote albums, they tend to run to about 30 pages - much smaller than the typical 150 page albums that we do for other couples; and we always include a free enlargement and at least one framed print., which is what many clients want.

Is it good business to offer a service that will never make the same profit as our standard offerings? Maybe not, but then who ever said "good business" the only reason people become wedding photographers?