Have some Wedding Photographers lost the plot

[Les McLean]

Over the last few weeks I've looked at a good number of Wedding shoots that have been posted on TP, while I've been generally impressed with the creativity and quality, some were more style over substance, and the odd few were just plain poor.

My niggle is more about inclusion (or exclusion), while the modern trend is away from the more formal set shots, (particularly group shots) towards a funkier, of the wall informal shots. Isn't there room in the mix for the more traditional shots, e.g Bride/groom+ best man+bridesmaids, bride/groom +brides parents etc etc

It was this post that got me thinking along these lines

http://www.rossharveyweddings.com/weddings/wedding-photographer-norfolk-kelly-tom

While I have no criticism of Ross as a photographer, I think he is very good, but looking through the storyboard, I couldn't see one 'formal' group shot.
It got me considering, that perhaps in 20 years time when the bride/groom are looking back through their wedding images, will they want to see the shots with Mum & Dad & Aunty Ethel and Uncle Bob , or an off the wall obscure image with processing that looked dead cool at the time but very dated now?

Way, way back when I used to do the odd wedding (in film days), I second shot a few weddings to get some valuable experience, the wedding pro gave me this nugget 'Make sure you get every guest at least once in an image or you will never be forgiven or forgotten by somebody'

Is it me, am I too 'traditional' in my way of thinking, or has wedding photography moved to a more relaxed style and this is generally the norm nowadays?

 

[Phil V]

Well I can't speak for Ross and I don't post my weddings here either. But when I post weddings on the blog I'm very careful about my 'brand' and trying to show the differences between me and A N Other Photographer.

So whilst during a consultation a couple would get to see all the shots from a wedding and we'd discuss numbers of group shots, they're a bit boring as web content.

I can see your concern, but consider what your last few weeks of looking at wedding websites would have been like if it'd included loads of family groups.

Whilst we try to put a twist on them and there's always fun versions too, the kind of shot you're saying you're missing are really boring and for the most part we could do one solid set in March and then do head swaps in photoshop the rest of the year. It's the reason I stopped shooting weddings 20 years ago.
I took it up again when I realised that I could shoot in a style that told the story of the day rather than just recording who was there.

 

[kris3291]

Over the last few weeks I've looked at a good number of Wedding shoots that have been posted on TP, while I've been generally impressed with the creativity and quality, some were more style over substance, and the odd few were just plain poor.

My niggle is more about inclusion (or exclusion), while the modern trend is away from the more formal set shots, (particularly group shots) towards a funkier, of the wall informal shots. Isn't there room in the mix for the more traditional shots, e.g Bride/groom+ best man+bridesmaids, bride/groom +brides parents etc etc

It was this post that got me thinking along these lines

http://www.rossharveyweddings.com/weddings/wedding-photographer-norfolk-kelly-tom

While I have no criticism of Ross as a photographer, I think he is very good, but looking through the storyboard, I couldn't see one 'formal' group shot.
It got me considering, that perhaps in 20 years time when the bride/groom are looking back through their wedding images, will they want to see the shots with Mum & Dad & Aunty Ethel and Uncle Bob , or an off the wall obscure image with processing that looked dead cool at the time but very dated now?

Way, way back when I used to do the odd wedding (in film days), I second shot a few weddings to get some valuable experience, the wedding pro gave me this nugget 'Make sure you get every guest at least once in an image or you will never be forgiven or forgotten by somebody'

Is it me, am I too 'traditional' in my way of thinking, or has wedding photography moved to a more relaxed style and this is generally the norm nowadays?

Have to say I almost completely agree with this. Whilst I like to see a personality to the pictures, some pics seem to be an odd angle of a doorway or a heavily processed picture of half of someone's ear.

 

[Yv]

I would also mention that a lot of photographers do 'formal group shots' but won't necessarily include them in blog story boards, remember even a story board in most instances isn't the entire gallery that the couple will see. Personally I sometimes try and include one, but not always, they are rarely 'interesting' to anyone other than those that were there and will do little to promote your 'style' unless you are the sort of photographer that will take the time to do really 'unusual' large group arrangements [as opposed to having some fun with just the bridal party]
Some 'reportage' photographers simply don't do them, that is fine, the couple will be fully aware of that before booking and are booking that photographer for that style - it is their choice.

 

[boyfalldown]

What Yvonne and Phil said. My customers also tend to regard them as something which must be done to keep the relatives happy but they themselves have little or no interest in them. I like working with this demographic and pushing groupshots in my advertising is not going to help me sell to them.

After all its his blog, and its purpose is to advertise to the people he wants to work with, and I'm sure he knows what sells. Its not there to appeal to other photographers. You seem to have missed this.

 

[swordjo]

It could just be the case the couple don't want the formal shots, you can't force a paying customer to do something they don't want.

 

[ShoeQueen]

I would also mention that a lot of photographers do 'formal group shots' but won't necessarily include them in blog story boards, remember even a story board in most instances isn't the entire gallery that the couple will see. Personally I sometimes try and include one, but not always, they are rarely 'interesting' to anyone other than those that were there and will do little to promote your 'style' unless you are the sort of photographer that will take the time to do really 'unusual' large group arrangements [as opposed to having some fun with just the bridal party])

Yes, I've just done my first wedding blog post and I included one family shot - but I took lots. They're just not as interesting in a blog 'story' - but that doesn't mean the couple don't get them/see them.

 

[Phil V]

Have to say I almost completely agree with this. Whilst I like to see a personality to the pictures, some pics seem to be an odd angle of a doorway or a heavily processed picture of half of someone's ear.

Can we keep this general, rather than a further opportunity to critique a set of images by a photographer that never invited this thread?

Because we are all friends here and this is about whether 'Traditional' group shots are missing from modern wedding photography. Lets keep to that topic rather than having a 'go' at one photographer.

It appears from the wedding photographers that have contributed so far, that they haven't disappeared - but that we feel they're not important in our marketing.

When you choose a professional photographer, if you don't like the style of someone here that's fine, don't book them. There are plenty of other photographers and someone will offer what you're looking for.

But remember that Ross was booked by those customers based on his portfolio and that's what that customer bought.

It's why I don't put up customer images for critique, because the only people I need to like my wedding photography are my customers. I posted one small set (non wedding) once, and the comments I received bore no relationship to what I would describe as critique, but someone telling me what they had previously done - my customers had a very strong bond to the images they received - should I have used someone else's idea and had unhappy customers?

 

[Les McLean]

. Its not there to appeal to other photographers. You seem to have missed this.

That's exactly the opposite of what (and why) I started this thread, I wasn't posting it as a photographer, but as a non photographer, particularly the point about what will be important to the bride and groom in 20 years, So I don't think I have missed it.

And a general comment, it could be the photographers have not posted the group shots on the blog or storyboard (as has been mentioned in the thrad)?

 

[Phil V]

That's exactly the opposite of what (and why) I started this thread, I wasn't posting it as a photographer, but as a non photographer, particularly the point about what will be important to the bride and groom in 20 years, So I don't think I have missed it.

And a general comment, it could be the photographers have not posted the group shots on the blog or storyboard?

You have a point but you're not seeing the photographers view. We cant sell what the B&G might want in 20 years time, we can only sell them what appeals to them now. I don't suppose there's any way to convince you that your view of what we sell is wrong though. Because several of us have told you that we still shoot fairly traditional family groups - you'll not find many on our websites, because they're not what brings in customers.

It's a bit like the miles between servicing in a car advert - you'll have to dig to find it - because the advert (website) is selling a lifestyle / a dream / an alternate reality. You're confusing the advert with the product and then questioning the product.

 

[gramps]

Many people today reject all that is 'traditional' in favour of something different ... modern ... a change from what their parents did - such has it always been as generations come and go.
The very idea of marriage itself has changed, so why not how the 'union' of whoever ... with whatever ... at wherever, is recorded?

Not for me though
(Mind you I'm still waiting for my wedding photos taken by a photographer 'friend' over 40 years ago ... a salutary lesson for all ).

 

[lizzy23]

a little bit controversial , but do we actually look at our wedding photos years down the line? and when we do, don't we laugh at how dated they are? i know i've been married 19 years and in 19 years apart from showing them to everyone after the event i've probably looked at them a dozen times, i would have muched rather have the option of mine telling the story of the whole day, not just the service, and who was there

 

[Les McLean]

You have a point but you're not seeing the photographers view. We cant sell what the B&G might want in 20 years time, we can only sell them what appeals to them now. I don't suppose there's any way to convince you that your view of what we sell is wrong though. Because several of us have told you that we still shoot fairly traditional family groups - you'll not find many on our websites, because they're not what brings in customers.

It's a bit like the miles between servicing in a car advert - you'll have to dig to find it - because the advert (website) is selling a lifestyle / a dream / an alternate reality. You're confusing the advert with the product and then questioning the product.

On the contrary, I think what you do & sell is correct, in my opening post, I didn't disagree with the modern reportage/informal style, I mainly questioned if the more traditional/formal style had been lost somewhat, and shouldn't there be room in the mix for this? And I do accept that you do shoot fairly traditional family groups (as I mentioned in post #9), perhaps I'm being naive, but when I see a storyboard (like the exmple I gave), I thought that all the images that would be presented to the bride/groom would be in the storyboard, so perhaps I am wrong in this assumption?

 

[Les McLean]

a little bit controversial , but do we actually look at our wedding photos years down the line? and when we do, don't we laugh at how dated they are? i know i've been married 19 years and in 19 years apart from showing them to everyone after the event i've probably looked at them a dozen times, i would have muched rather have the option of mine telling the story of the whole day, not just the service, and who was there

That's a good point Lizzy, and straight from the horses mouth so to speak

 

[Phil V]

, perhaps I'm being naive, but when I see a storyboard (like the exmple I gave), I thought that all the images that would be presented to the bride/groom would be in the storyboard, so perhaps I am wrong in this assumption?

I can't speak for Ross with certainty - But you'd probably be wrong in that assumption. I show a sneak peek of about 15 images, a full blog post with maybe 40 or 50 but the couple will receive about 400-600 (including B&W conversions) from which we make their album selection. I can say that those delivered numbers are about average for a full days wedding. Ross shows many more than me on the blog, but I'm still guessing it's not all he delivered.

 

[chivers67]

Does sometimes appear to be no formals in various blogs but the average wedding photographer these days isn't expected to take as many as in the past as they take up so much time to organise and do - it's not what people seem to want now. Least not the huge group

I have seen some wierd and wacky shots i wouldn't even regard as keepers not going to point my finger at anyone in particular.

There are some out there who are very artistic and capture well thought out shots put together tells an excellent "Story" of the day - Ross being one of them. One thing I keep seeing is selective focus and hard framing done to the extreme when done well some of the shots look excellent but when overdone they look like an image an inexpereinced guest wouldn't even be happy with.

Some portraits i've seen lately have been very moody & dark that doesn't really shout out as a Wedding portrait as such - I guess it depends on what the bride and groom are wanting. I prefer to take brighter "happier" shots.

Wedding Photography sure has evolved in the last twenty odd years. I do sometimes feel photgraphers have moved away from groups to make their work easier but most Couples seem pleased and appreciate some artistic content in their special day.

 

[PSILVERMAN]

We do both and all our couples want the group shots aswell. In fact they often list a lot more and as they're paying clients we accommodate them. You have to remember that aswell as being something for the couple the photographs are a social record.
In 50 odd years time great great grandson may well want to see what great aunt agatha looked like. We as photographers have the responsibility to capture these images for future generations. Yes it may not quite fit in with your idea of art or your style but wedding photography encompasses more than a photographers ego.

 

[boyfalldown]

I thought that all the images that would be presented to the bride/groom would be in the storyboard, so perhaps I am wrong in this assumption?

I can't speak for Ross, but my storyboards generally contain about 1/3 of the final images presented. I'd be surprised if a photographer presented every image in a storyboard.

 

[spxxxx]

Les

Regardless of current trends I think that traditional coverage i.e group shots are done by 98% of wedding photographers ... and although I limit them in number to around a manageable 10 they all seem to find their way in to the album which says something.

This is in addition to my more stylised coverage and I think it is what couples want even if they don't know it at the time.

I do think that those that don't tick all the boxes do so at their peril maybe at the expense of business longevity ? whatever the style ?

 

[stu7397]

I suppose it comes down to what the party wants, I welcome the newer approach, the departure from the boring stuffy formality is well overdue.

If the standard poses are what you want though... well there is nothing wrong with that, at the end of the day they are paying and will expect value for money whatever the outcome.

 

[On the Huh]

My biggest bug-bare is the number of different PP offered in a set of pics, that some photographers seem to do.

Someone like Alexandros Babi process all his coloured pics the same and all his monochrome pics the same...a mixture of colour and B&W is fine like this, but when different PP'ing is done on every other picture...:nuts:
Still I suppose that's for another thread, and TBH, have done daft stuff like this in the past.

 

[Phil V]

My biggest bug-bare is the number of different PP offered in a set of pics, that some photographers seem to do.

Someone like Alexandros Babi process all his coloured pics the same and all his monochrome pics the same...a mixture of colour and B&W is fine like this, but when different PP'ing is done on every other picture...:nuts:
Still I suppose that's for another thread, and TBH, have done daft stuff like this in the past.

That's a bit of a newbie thing, looking for a style. You'll find the regular guys have found their 'look'. I used to have a bit of a thing for midnight black and always added a couple to my weddings, there'd be an occasional tinted B&W too, but I've even taken them all out of my portfolio now and havent used them for 4 or 5 years. I'm still struggling with selective colour though, because I don't advertise it or want to do it - but customers keep asking for it at the initial consultation.

 

[alexkidd]

They're boring as hell but as people have said loads of wp's do them anyway, even those in the reportage wedding society jobbie :/

I keep mine to a minimum if i can and would always say to a couple to try and get some personality and life into group shots, standing in a line/group saying cheese is just painfully naff

 

[ShoeQueen]

I used 4 different processing styles in my last wedding. B&W and a very few toned ones (which I may remove/change), and colour and a few with a bit of a 'vintage' feel - but these were all on photos taken at a particular part of the day and I felt they suited the processing.

And yes, I think I'm still finding my style...

 

[alexkidd]

regarding style i always go with what suits the wedding and couple rather than what suits me

too many weddings imho are shot as an extension of the photographers brand and ego but i suppose that's what their customers like so it's a bit of a moot point

 

[POAH]

Formal pics are generally a bit boring which is why they never make it on to blogs???

 

[Richard King]

Over the last few weeks I've looked at a good number of Wedding shoots that have been posted on TP, while I've been generally impressed with the creativity and quality, some were more style over substance, and the odd few were just plain poor.

Post up what you feel is excellent then.

 

[MartynK]

a little bit controversial , but do we actually look at our wedding photos years down the line? and when we do, don't we laugh at how dated they are? i know i've been married 19 years and in 19 years apart from showing them to everyone after the event i've probably looked at them a dozen times, i would have muched rather have the option of mine telling the story of the whole day, not just the service, and who was there

Hmm. We've been married 35 years and I don't suppose we looked at our wedding photographs more than once or twice. I don't know where they are now, but they may have been lost in one of our moves. Really couldn't care less.

 

[CaptainPenguin]

For all the "Modern" wedding photographers who look on group shots as boring or even beneath them and to all B&G's who might believe such crap can I give a cautionary tale.
I was married 28 years ago and many of the parents grandparents at my wedding are now gone to a better place,some of the nicest shots wee have to remember them by are those taken on our wedding day with all the family on each side together.
reportage may be fashionable but the memories engendered by an ice picture of long lost loved ones at a joyous family occasion are much more important

 

[Richard King]

For all the "Modern" wedding photographers who look on group shots as boring or even beneath them and to all B&G's who might believe such crap can I give a cautionary tale.
I was married 28 years ago and many of the parents grandparents at my wedding are now gone to a better place,some of the nicest shots wee have to remember them by are those taken on our wedding day with all the family on each side together.
reportage may be fashionable but the memories engendered by an ice picture of long lost loved ones at a joyous family occasion are much more important

There are several factors at play here

- a professional wedding photographer ought to be able to shoot groups, set-up shots, portraits, directed shots, candid, natural shots, still lifes without any dramas or a second thought
- A professional wedding photographer, ought to be able to use no lighting, reflectors, on camera flash, off camera flash all the way up to studio flashes - without any dramas or a second thought
- A Professional wedding photographer should be able to deal with people, old or young, with ease

So assuming the good all rounder, what is the professional wedding photographer to do... When clients book, the large majoritory say: "I want natural, un-posed, unobtrusive" i.e. to get bookings you have to show this

However on the day they reel out a list of group shots, which of course the professional photographer can deal with in his stride

On top of that, each good wedidng photgrapher has a "style" and that is additionally what the best are booked for

What we deliver, and what we show, and what we creativley push towards are 3 different things.

Without bookings, there is no shoot, no photo's, group shots or candids

 

[Les McLean]

Post up what you feel is excellent then.

No, my post wasn't about good (or bad) photographers, more about content than quality.
The thread has remained civilized , intelligent and good natured, I feel by showing what I think is good (or bad) the thread may develop into a bun fight, then the thread would lose its plot .

 

[alexkidd]

richard pretty has pretty much nailed it.

oh and imho a standard group photo can be boring but obviously if someone dies etc then any photos of that person become treasured.

however given the choice of a shot of the recently deceased standing in formation with the entire family or captured actually enjoying conversation/jenga/coffee/whatever with or without the family i'd say personally i'd go for this option instead

saying "such crap" just because you disagree with the thoughts on what interests folk shows a certain amount of narrow mindedness imho you say "reportage" as if it's a passing fashion with the inference that it's incapable of generating nice pictures when in reality all styles can generate nice pictures of long lost loved ones :/ and i think reportage has been around for a fair length of time and is here to stay.

 

[Yv]

I think the thing is, when it was x number rolls of film, almost all the pictures from your 'average' wedding photographer for a 'normal' couple had to be 'posed', set up, however you want to describe having to try and ensure every shot counted. A 'story board' would have been almost impossible for everyone apart from the richest that could afford that kind 'unlimited' style. [I am just generalising here, I realise there would have been exceptions - my parents 'proofs - some 120 photos, were about 90% posed & ditto other family members of same generation]

As photography has developed, through digital, it has given the photographer, and by obvious extension, the client, much great scope for covering the day in much greater detail and actually creating that visual story and allowing a whole combination of relaxed, candid, posed, formal photos and any other 'style' you want to add to that list. So from the entire day, the group shots become quite a small part, and as mentioned already, not a part that usually 'sells' your work - it is often mainly for the benefit of the older generations. Having said that, I do remind the odd few clients who say initially that they dont want them, that whilst I am happy not to do them if they don't want, that one day they will be that older generation, and might just be the ones wanting to make sure that the children produced of the wedding they are about to attend will know what they looked like, so not to feel pressured into having them by family, but do appreciate why they might be doing it

So I think to answer your question Les, based on the answers here, 'traditional' shots are still done, by the majority of wedding photographers, it is just that only the clients see them

 

[CaptainPenguin]

richard pretty has pretty much nailed it.

oh and imho a standard group photo can be boring but obviously if someone dies etc then any photos of that person become treasured.

however given the choice of a shot of the recently deceased standing in formation with the entire family or captured actually enjoying conversation/jenga/coffee/whatever with or without the family i'd say personally i'd go for this option instead

saying "such crap" just because you disagree with the thoughts on what interests folk shows a certain amount of narrow mindedness imho you say "reportage" as if it's a passing fashion with the inference that it's incapable of generating nice pictures when in reality all styles can generate nice pictures of long lost loved ones :/ and i think reportage has been around for a fair length of time and is here to stay.

If you can guarantee to get a good shot of Everbody in a relaxed reportage style then great if not then just do the groups to ensure you have everybody

 

[Les McLean]

So I think to answer your question Les, based on the answers here, 'traditional' shots are still done, by the majority of wedding photographers, it is just that only the clients see them

Reading through the thread Yv, I think you are right, even though the group shots are perhaps not displayed on the blog/storyboard, they are likely to be in there somewhere, which is reassuring

And I don't think group shots are necessarily boring has some have indicated, they can be very much fun and interesting, the last wedding I attended as a guest, the main photographer was shooting some group shots from the balcony of the hotel down into the grounds, one shot he had a load of guests arranged in a heart shape with the B&G in the middle, sounds a bit cheesy, but it was a lovely image, in another he had the blokes doing the Madness Dance from One step beyond, he even played the song via his mobile, the blokes got it wrong and were all over the place, but it ended up a fun (and funny) picture that everyone liked.

I'm sure most of the wedding togs here could relate their innovative and inspiring ways to get the best out of group shots, it would be nice to see more of the results when they post on TP?

In the olden days (i.e. film) getting everyone's mug in shot was also a commercial decision , as unlike today, you could reckon to earn roughly the same amount from reprints/additional albums as you could from the basic package of a proof album and 30 8x6 prints in a Wedding album.
So the reasoning went, if a person was in shot, it's more likely they will order a print.

As from a legacy point of view, I do think that group shots should be in the mix, and especially both sides of the family should get a look in.

It's very rare I look at my wedding photos (1 inch platforms and Oxford Bags never really stood the test of time), but it is important to me (not as a photographer) to have a record of everyone who was at the wedding, but I do appreciate not everyone has the same point of view.

 

[boyfalldown]

For all the "Modern" wedding photographers who look on group shots as boring or even beneath them and to all B&G's who might believe such crap can I give a cautionary tale.
I was married 28 years ago and many of the parents grandparents at my wedding are now gone to a better place,some of the nicest shots wee have to remember them by are those taken on our wedding day with all the family on each side together.
reportage may be fashionable but the memories engendered by an ice picture of long lost loved ones at a joyous family occasion are much more important

If you can guarantee to get a good shot of Everbody in a relaxed reportage style then great if not then just do the groups to ensure you have everybody

you seem to be rather missing the point. Just because something is not on a blog doesn't mean it wasn't done. A blog is a sales tool. Its used to sell to future customers who may not be particularly interested in other peoples group shots. Without being rude I'll cater for my potential customers rather then you in my sales tools. Assume thats OK?

 

[TopBanana]

Don't forget that you're looking at popular wedding photographer blogs and those posted on TP. These are photographers who care about their art and their style and are trying to demonstrate something by posting images (primarily advertising). A good, standard, group shot isn't the best way to show your style as it won't be that different to someone else's (with the exception of trees growing out of heads etc)..
As said by someone earlier, if you look through the albums that clients are actually buying then I'm sure you will find the group pictures.

Out of interest I also think the group shots are important when looking back in future years, especially as it's one of the few times that you can gather most of the family together. However the reportage type shots give a lot better indication of people's personality which is probably just as important when showing them to your children/grandchildren etc.

 

[Jambonier]

Personally I have never seen much value in the formal group shots from weddings as a memory of individuals.

When my grandmother died, I created a photo montage as a memory. Despite her appearing in dozens of formal wedding photographs, none of these made the montage as none gave a clue to her personality or character. Much more prized were the 'impromptu' photographs from the same weddings showing her beauty and personality.

My own wedding album from years ago is never looked at, and would be the last source I would go to for a memory or a picture of a deceased relative or friend.

 

[Daryl]

Should be a mixture of modern and Trad. I love groups and bigger groups... should only take 20 mins to do. Groups do not take long to do.... Tog needs to be loud and an entertainer.......

120 shouting 'Who's pig is this?' makes them all laugh everytime!

Who the hell still says cheese? Stuck in the sixties?


One i don't do is have the same backdrop for all the groups.... and trad groups can be made to look casual or move folk in and out of focus = Foreground and back ground groups......

 

[Joshua James]

I HATE traditional group shots. Its my least favourite part of the wedding, I can't stand editting them (blinking should be a capital punishment offence), I know that dispite giving me a long list of groups the B&G will always skim through these images and they'll very, very rarely go in the album.

BUT I still take them every time.

Would I blog them? No. In some ways I desperately cling on to the hope that by not blogging them I'll attract a client who doesn't want to do them!

In all seriousness though they tend to be dull to look at unless you know who's in them and even then until someone dies they tend to get passed over very quickly.