Documentary Wedding Photographers

alexkidd

alexkidd

D.O.N.K.E.Y.
Messages
2,812
Name
Alex
Edit My Images
No
We just recently went on a course with Kevin Mullins and Neale James, I'd never really looked at Neales work before so it was nice to see it, this lead me to thinking who else is out there I should know about with decent documentary style wedding photography? :)

linky linky people :D

(here's neal and kevins work)

http://www.nealejames.com/
http://www.kevinmullinsphotography.co.uk/
 
Last edited:
I absolutely love that kind of style of wedding photography. It has something else, not just your average shots - but really a story behind it.
Ross Harvey is one of the best Wedding Photographers in the world and a lot of his work is a mixture or a cross between the classic wedding photography and this documentary style.
I am so so jealous.
http://www.rossharvey.com/collection-wed1
 
Aye he's a fearless photographer type, totally respect his work but I'm not sure I'd ever work towards those "wow" pictures kinda spoils the ambience for me haha

Good pick though and thank you for replying, thought this thread had died, my attempt at making a post I'd actually be interested in ;)
 
alexkidd said:
Aye he's a fearless photographer type, totally respect his work but I'm not sure I'd ever work towards those "wow" pictures kinda spoils the ambience for me haha
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you mean there Alex, but don't forget that in order to form a proper opinion about a documentary wedding photographer, you need to see complete weddings - not just the hero snaps.
 
It's a kinda collective/association of photographers, commonly recognised through their "wow" shots, lots of which aren't particularly documentary, they're great and a lot of the photographers combine the posed stuff with the documentary stuff though :)
i'd disagree that I need to see a complete wedding to form a "proper" opinion, I think that opinions can change and evolve and i'll make mine based on what I can see that's available to me haha

http://www.fearlessphotographers.com/

It's a good site to look through :)
 
alexkidd said:
It's a kinda collective/association of photographers, commonly recognised through their "wow" shots, lots of which aren't particularly documentary, they're great and a lot of the photographers combine the posed stuff with the documentary stuff though :)
i'd disagree that I need to see a complete wedding to form a "proper" opinion, I think that opinions can change and evolve and i'll make mine based on what I can see that's available to me haha

http://www.fearlessphotographers.com/

It's a good site to look through :)
Click to expand...

Sorry Alex, it's not Fearless that I wasn't sure about. I actually know the guy who started it and several of its founder members. The bit I wasn't sure about was
those "wow" pictures kinda spoils the ambience for me haha
Click to expand...
BTW, I take it that you've also checked out the opposition ?
 
Last edited:
Ahh ok, for me the posed wow shots stick out (as they should) from my personal likes as not the kind of road I'd really want to be going down for documentary and remind me of more traditional photography

I'm it really a big fan of posing though :)

I looked at the wpja a while ago, some great stuff on there too :) was really hoping there'd be more people with personal favourites chipping in but doesn't look like it's happening haha

Be good for anyone lurking on this thread to see both the wpja and fearless sites though, great showcases of some excellent photographers :D
 
alexkidd said:
... for me the posed wow shots stick out (as they should) from my personal likes as not the kind of road I'd really want to be going down for documentary and remind me of more traditional photography
Click to expand...

Indeed - but posed shots as such are not incompatible with a documentary approach. We sold ourselves as documentary snappers but we always did posed couple shots in addition of course to the mandatory groups. What we didn't do though was set-ups of the "Reservoir Dogs" or "Bride As Battering Ram" type. Surely that's what has nothing to do with "documentary"?

alexkidd said:
I looked at the wpja a while ago, some great stuff on there too :)
Click to expand...

Hmmmm ... I was one of the original two UK snappers on it (the other being Simon Atkins, both of us by invitation and neither of us paying for the "privilege", btw) but I hadn't looked at it since a bunch of us left in disgust maybe 9 years ago now - until your comment prompted me to check it out.

I only looked briefly down the list of "England" snappers, but I was interested to note that (a) I only know four of them (Julie Kim, David Pullum, Mark Wallis and Ian Bursill), all of whom are definitely documentary/fauxtojournalist in approach, and (b) if David Roberts is still running that site, his idea of "PJ" has changed an awful lot judging by what's on a lot of those other English snappers' sites ...
 
Last edited:
I wouls take a look at Jeff Ascough's work
 
alexkidd said:
Which bit is confusing? :)
Click to expand...

Not just weddings to be fair. Same's true with most 'industry bodies' I've come across. Bunch of mates patting each other on the back.

The thing with the wedding ones is, I find it hard to believe that many real people who are about to get married, would want 90% of the photos that are celebrated amongst these groups. For example, the bloke who's just won the photographer of the year on that site. He has some cool shots, but the majority of them are set up gimmicky things that appear to be shot for other photographers to ooh and ahh over how clever he is. Suppose that's always going to be the case with photographer's awards - they're shot for other photographers - it certainly is with the commercial awards here in Oz.
 
That's understandable, we're not much for the vanity/wow shots ourselves but people definitely go for it, think it's usually something they'll get printed for wall art :)

(can't seem to find the winning photo to have a look at on my mobile strangely enough haha)
 
Last edited:
The nature of wedding photography make it almost impossible to be a strict documentary photographer. Even if the couple want it, not every family member or guest will understand it - and you can't be 100% invisible. There's an expectation for at least SOME posed pictures. The only way, I think, to do 100% documentary is to also employ someone who gets those posed family shots and portraits that appease families (they're often the people paying your wages).

Jayst84 said:
Not just weddings to be fair. Same's true with most 'industry bodies' I've come across. Bunch of mates patting each other on the back.

The thing with the wedding ones is, I find it hard to believe that many real people who are about to get married, would want 90% of the photos that are celebrated amongst these groups. For example, the bloke who's just won the photographer of the year on that site. He has some cool shots, but the majority of them are set up gimmicky things that appear to be shot for other photographers to ooh and ahh over how clever he is. Suppose that's always going to be the case with photographer's awards - they're shot for other photographers - it certainly is with the commercial awards here in Oz.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I try to do creative portraits and am never thinking of what other photographers will think when I'm taking them. The motivation is always to create something the couple will love and something I'm proud of. And in all honesty, its that sort of work that attracts our clients. Thinking a client won't appreciate good photography because they're not a photographer is like assuming you can't appreciate good music without being a musician.
 
Jayst84 said:
Agree. That's why I didn't say that. (y)
Click to expand...

I must've misunderstood "I find it hard to believe that many real people who are about to get married, would want 90% of the photos that are celebrated amongst these groups" because in my experience, I find it to be the case that most couples want or indeed expect that these days. Couples are much more discerning than they were 5 years ago, and are only getting increasingly so.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
The nature of wedding photography make it almost impossible to be a strict documentary photographer. Even if the couple want it, not every family member or guest will understand it - and you can't be 100% invisible. There's an expectation for at least SOME posed pictures. The only way, I think, to do 100% documentary is to also employ someone who gets those posed family shots and portraits that appease families (they're often the people paying your wages). [/QUOTE ]

Aye, we do some but don't really put so much effort into the posed shots they're more often just a document of who was there (documentary eh? :p)

Main thing I was hoping from this thread was to find some hidden gems in the genre who don't push their posed photos as the big sell and try and concentrate on selling their reportage style :)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'd say a large percentage of what we show on our website is technically documentary, and our posed stuff is only posed in a sense that we tell a couple where to be rather than what to do when they stand there. I'd say a lot of the 'newer' (or younger?) wedding photographers are the same.
 
decigallen said:
I'd say a large percentage of what we show on our website is technically documentary
Click to expand...

Deci, there's certainly some very nice snaps to be seen there but I'm thoroughly perplexed by a bit of your blurb ...

We like to capture things as they unfold; documenting if we can help it, without interfering.
Click to expand...

What's that about then?
 
Last edited:
Serendipitous Sid said:
Deci, there's certainly some very nice snaps to be seen there but I'm thoroughly perplexed by a bit of your blurb ...
What's that about then?
Click to expand...

I don't follow? What's perplexing? I thought it was pretty succinct - our style is 90-95% just that. Aside from about 10-12 family snaps and portraits (which themselves have minimal guidance and posing) we don't interfere - in those two cases interference can't be helped, hence the 'if we can help it' caveat. We don't tell people to do or repeat things, or move them to a different part of the room for better light... to all intents and purposes, we simply document with the vast majority (90-95%) of the pics.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
I don't follow? What's perplexing? I thought it was pretty succinct - our style is 90-95% just that. Aside from about 10-12 family snaps and portraits (which themselves have minimal guidance and posing) we don't interfere - in those two cases interference can't be helped, hence the 'if we can help it' caveat. We don't tell people to do or repeat things, or move them to a different part of the room for better light... to all intents and purposes, we simply document with the vast majority (90-95%) of the pics.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing Dan read it like I did, where the 'if we can help it' caveat is a real 'get out of jail' card. Not something used sparingly, but basically 'we won't interfere, unless you don't do as we expect - in which case we have licence to pose you all we want'.

For me, I wouldn't add the phrase, it's much better in conversation, where you can tell them exactly what you mean with nuances and body language.

Just my 2p.
 
We don't claim to be documentary photographers - we claim to 'document the event it as it unfolds', without interference. Every wedding photographer is essentially documenting the day but the distinction that we're making is that, unlike many of my peers, we don't impose ourselves on the wedding. I have NEVER asked someone to repeat something, nor told them what to do during a wedding. In fact, outside of portraits, the only interferrring I've done is giving people a lift/food/drink, doing up ties/buttonholes and giving advice that was asked of me - ie. being helpful and friendly. To be a silent documenter at a wedding is counter to the spirit event in my opinion, and more suited to traditional photojournalism.
 
decigallen said:
We don't claim to be documentary photographers - we claim to 'document the event it as it unfolds', without interference. Every wedding photographer is essentially documenting the day but the distinction that we're making is that, unlike many of my peers, we don't impose ourselves on the wedding. I have NEVER asked someone to repeat something, nor told them what to do during a wedding. In fact, outside of portraits, the only interferrring I've done is giving people a lift/food/drink, doing up ties/buttonholes and giving advice that was asked of me - ie. being helpful and friendly. To be a silent documenter at a wedding is counter to the spirit event in my opinion, and more suited to traditional photojournalism.
Click to expand...
So...
Have a read at what I read again :)

I don't think your caveat is doing you any favours ;)
 
I've read it, Phil. Not doing me any favours? In what sense? Is it really 'thoroughly' perplexing?

We use the word documenting as interchangeable with capturing - the start of the sentence reaffirms this tone, but we could hardly use a participle of the same verb twice in one sentence. We don't sell ourselves as documentary wedding photographers, anywhere on our site, and this has certainly never been flagged by our clients nor fellow professionals.I really don't get the problem (nor how it relates to the discussion, for that matter).

A subsequent paragraph makes our position VERY clear: "We give some gentle direction during your wedding portraits, should you need it, but ultimately we like to keep things as natural as possible."
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
I've read it, Phil. Not doing me any favours? In what sense? Is it really 'thoroughly' perplexing?

We use the word documenting as interchangeable with capturing - the start of the sentence reaffirms this tone, but we could hardly use a participle of the same verb twice in one sentence. We don't sell ourselves as documentary wedding photographers, anywhere on our site, and this has certainly never been flagged by our clients nor fellow professionals.I really don't get the problem (nor how it relates to the discussion, for that matter).
Click to expand...
You're getting hung up on the wrong end.
As I said it's the phrase 'if we can help it', which in your head is a 'last resort' and in your customers head could be 'we'll do whatever we like' ?

You're trying to get yourself permission to move an inch and your customer is reading you're free to order them about and pose them as much as you feel the need, or to move a mile.
 
No, that's your interpretation of what our customer will think, and in our experience not at all what they do think. The inference of 'if we can help it' in the English language is generally that you'll do everything in your power to avoid something but it might actually happen as a 'last resort' or 'I wouldn't do it unless faced with no other choice'. I have never encountered that being interpreted idiomatically as 'we'll do whatever we like.'

The rest of our bio, along with our portfolio and blogs, make it pretty clear how we work. We've never encountered any issues, nor have we been required to clarify how we work, so I must presume that how we present our style of working is quite succinct.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
No, that's your interpretation of what our customer will think, and in our experience not at all what they do think. The inference of 'if we can help it' in the English language is generally that you'll do everything in your power to avoid something but it might actually happen as a 'last resort' or 'I wouldn't do it unless faced with no other choice'. I have never encountered that being interpreted idiomatically as 'we'll do whatever we like.'

The rest of our bio, along with our portfolio and blogs, make it pretty clear how we work. We've never encountered any issues, nor have we been required to clarify how we work, so I must presume that how we present our style of working is quite succinct.
Click to expand...
Just trying to be helpful. If you're not able to see that there's more than one way of reading it, that's fine :)
 
Ach now Phil, there's of course different ways to interpret any sentence, but the common interpretation of 'if we can help it' is absolutely the one that I've given. So from my perspective: 1) the majority will understand the sentence as was intended because of the context of the whole text; 2) it is almost certain that no client of ours will read into it in the depths to which you're doing and; 3) if it does bother them, they're probably not a good fit for us as clients.

From my perspective, and I mean no disrespect, it feels less like you're being helpful, and more like you're being wilfully contrary... so point taken, agree to differ and leave it at that.
 
Seriously now, I didn't want or invite criticism of my website or bio so I why is it up for conversation here?

If someone misreads the idiomatic connotations of the phrase 'if we can help it', or finds it thoroughly perplexing, that's fine. If someone sees it as negative or weak, then that's fine too - but I find that to be an equally odd reading, as traditionally it's a phrase that is indicative of strivance and trying to do everything within one's power. If we drop 'if we can help it' then it says we absolutely don't interfere and implies something different to what we want to say.

This honestly seems like argument for argument's sake - I didn't ask for critique, my business isn't suffering, no client has raised any issue or questioned how we work before. I have asked previously to 'leave it at that' because the thread has gone seriously off topic.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
I didn't ask for critique ...
Click to expand...

Not sure who's been critiquing or criticisng your website, but it sure as hell wasn't me. I simply asked a question about something on it which puzzled me, but wtf.

Anyhow ...

alexkidd said:
... who else is out there I should know about with decent documentary style wedding photography?
Click to expand...

That would obviously depend on what you consider to be "decent", but you could do worse than check out some of my old pals Simpson Photography, Kerridge Weddings, Ian Bursill, Shooting Hip, Iain Bain, and of course the pair of reprobates who, 8 years ago now, joined us on the adventure that was Foundation Workshop - David Pullum and Anil Tohani (who now trades as Zurihsia)
 
Last edited:
bartoszwozniak said:
I absolutely love that kind of style of wedding photography. It has something else, not just your average shots - but really a story behind it.
Ross Harvey is one of the best Wedding Photographers in the world and a lot of his work is a mixture or a cross between the classic wedding photography and this documentary style.
I am so so jealous.
http://www.rossharvey.com/collection-wed1
Click to expand...
Ross Harvey is awesome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top