Wedding photography

dkh

dkh

Messages
890
Name
Dilip
Edit My Images
No
I have only just joined this forum so please go easy. I have noticed a lot of websites list the photography service as one of the following: documentary / reportage / photojournalist.

What, in your mind, defines a documentary photographer and is this any different to a photojournalist / reportage?
 
I've always thought that reportage and photojournalism are the same (probably wrong but hey) and definitely documentary is totally different?

To me, documentary is about story telling, capturing images that singularly and in conjunction with others, tell a story. Whereas reportage is about just capturing what you see and photojournalism is like reportage but you are removed and therefore capture anything and everything including not so pleasing imagery.

I got hooked on documentary style photography (mainly because my lecturer was a documentary wedding photographer) at uni and my friends were interested in the reportage / photojournalism styles.
 
strange you seem to have asked a question that your confident you know the answer to.


for me most wedding photogrpahers who list there style as "documentary / reportage / photojournalist " are the ones who never learnt the trade ..just did a friends wedding by shooting everyhting.. got loads of good feedback and decided to do reportage weddings.. they dont have a clue how to do a "proper" wedding..

I say most.. not all ..
No I cant define "proper"
It's just my thoughts.
Yes I know I just lit the flame :.

No the above isn't a rubbish poem :)
 
dkh said:
I've always thought that reportage and photojournalism are the same (probably wrong but hey) and definitely documentary is totally different?

To me, documentary is about story telling, capturing images that singularly and in conjunction with others, tell a story. Whereas reportage is about just capturing what you see and photojournalism is like reportage but you are removed and therefore capture anything and everything including not so pleasing imagery.

I got hooked on documentary style photography (mainly because my lecturer was a documentary wedding photographer) at uni and my friends were interested in the reportage / photojournalism styles.
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure I see the distinction, although genuinely using any of those terms in relation to wedding photography is a bit of a stretch. Many great photojournalists created scenarios and posed their subjects, but the WPJA insist that images shouldn't be posed.

In truth, most wedding photographers, even ones who sell themselves as traditional now choose to 'document' the day, and the fact that they'll create scenes to shoot is closer to photojournalism than the Wedding PJ shooters who simply photograph what happens.
 
Hi,
I didn't ask a question of what is... I asked "what in your mind is..." Sorry if that is misleading.

To the question of 'these' styles being taken up by people not knowing what they're doing - I worked with someone who has over 30 years experience to get my bearings right for three years (yes, my uni lecturer).

And, I know you're not saying it but, I do kind of agree with what I think you're saying - that the term 'documentary / reportage / photojournalism' styles are adopted because they are a buzz word unlike non-traditional styles of wedding photography by people with cameras who 'want a slice of the action'.
 
I don't think I could do a wedding.. I dont think I could control and get everyone to pose and to spend an hr after the ceremony taking shots while 90% just want to get to the reception.. I dont think I could handle the awkward inlaws and I would probably nut uncle tom wiht his camera..

But I could go to a wedding and from the sidelines take pictures of everyone and everyhting as it happens... I dont believe that would make me a wedding photogrpaher.. but others do and they simply label it 'documentary / reportage / photojournalism'

So my answereto your question is.. I think there all the same and used by pretend wedding photogrpahers...


PS
some wedding photographers add this to there skill set and thats brilliant and offer one or the other or both with an assistant.. But people saying thats there style and the only way they do weddings... sorry but..
 
Your reply is very interesting Tony.

This is how I justify what I do:
1. When a couple gets married the photographer isn't the one conducting any part of the ceremony.
2. And even more importantly, it is the couple / family, not anyone else, who decides whether their ceremony is captured by some snotty nosed 'artist', a truly gifted and qualified artist or someone who charges a bar of snickers for the privilege.

I do look through websites at photographers who call themselves documentary and am truly miffed at what I find but, such is the field of photography and those 'practicing'.
 
KIPAX said:
I dont think I could handle the awkward inlaws and I would probably nut uncle tom wiht his camera..
Click to expand...

Everyone knows it's 'Uncle Bob' ... don't you know anything about wedding photography?

:D
 
dkh said:
1. When a couple gets married the photographer isn't the one conducting any part of the ceremony.
Click to expand...

I dont really understand what your saying above? But a photogrpaher is supposed to take control of the photogrpahy side of things ...such as after the ceremony in the grounds.. for the formal shots.. he is supposed to be in control of everyone involved.. nobody else..him!

Nothing to do with conducting the ceremony.. you kinda lost me there ?
 
gramps said:
Everyone knows it's 'Uncle Bob' ... don't you know anything about wedding photography?

:D
Click to expand...

I knew it didnt quite sound right.. but thought it was haha
 
KIPAX said:
I dont really understand what your saying above? But a photogrpaher is supposed to take control of the photogrpahy side of things ...such as after the ceremony in the grounds.. for the formal shots.. he is supposed to be in control of everyone involved.. nobody else..him!

Nothing to do with conducting the ceremony.. you kinda lost me there ?
Click to expand...

Sorry, what I meant to say is the ceremony is not conducted by a photographer. The priest / registrar etc have this job. If a couple need ideas on how to stand, how to sign a registry book etc they will look and book a photographer to fit.

In my experience, which is around 180 weddings, I have only come across 10 or so couples who didn't want group or posed shots BUT, this is not during the ceremony and, is likely to continue this way.
 
ha right :)

I would find it kinda strange to think of a wedding album with no formals.. incomplete.. but end of the day its what the customer wants (or has been talked into) i guess..

PS you know i put after the ceremony in my original answer yes? only you keep fixating on the actual ceremony when replying to me :)
 
Last edited:
dkh said:
Your reply is very interesting Tony.

This is how I justify what I do:
1. When a couple gets married the photographer isn't the one conducting any part of the ceremony.
2. And even more importantly, it is the couple / family, not anyone else, who decides whether their ceremony is captured by some snotty nosed 'artist', a truly gifted and qualified artist or someone who charges a bar of snickers for the privilege.

I do look through websites at photographers who call themselves documentary and am truly miffed at what I find but, such is the field of photography and those 'practicing'.
Click to expand...

I'm truly 'miffed' by most people who advertise themselves as any kind of wedding photographer. Around me they range from gifted through talented and adequate right through to embarrassing. Unfortunately there's more near the bottom of the list than near the top.

And there's as many charlatans who believe they're traditional or modern or fresh and funky as there are photojournalist. For all the incompetent 'natural light' photographers there's plenty of awful flash use too. And for all the awful posing there's plenty of mis-timed capturing of moments.

But my only real frustrations are why customers can't see what I do when I look at their work.

Or that they can be proud to be part of a 'professional organisation' and in some cases 'award winning' from one of these organisations.
 
dkh said:
Tony, forgive my ignorance but, what type of photography are you into?
Click to expand...

i would have thought my first post in this thread was a bit of a giveaway to be perfectly honest :) www.kipax.com
PS Click the wedding Icon.. paragraph 2 is good :)
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
ha right :)

I would find it kinda strange to think of a wedding album with no formals.. incomplete.. but end of the day its what the customer wants (or has been talked into) i guess..
Click to expand...

I agree - I think some togs just put the 'reportage' type photos on their blog and do others to include with the 'official' photos.
A relative of mine got married a few weeks ago and I really don't like the photos on the blog but I know the tog did some other group shots etc, which the family members will want and these aren't on the blog ... so you would get an incorrect idea about the 'package' from just looking at the blog.
 
Phil V said:
But my only real frustrations are why customers can't see what I do when I look at their work.

Or that they can be proud to be part of a 'professional organisation' and in some cases 'award winning' from one of these organisations.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, photographers look at photographs differently to our potential clients / customers. I would dare to say that those who have this 'art' sussed are busier than those who don't.

I joined this forum because there are some truly gifted (IMHO) photographers and I love seeing, speaking and learning from them and the many others that I will eventually learn about.
 
dkh said:
Unfortunately, photographers look at photographs differently to our potential clients / customers. .
Click to expand...

Oh so very true...

Many yrs ago walking down the rd my mate turned and pointed at a newly built garden wall.. he slagged it off telling me all that was wrong wiht it.... All i could see was a wall.. but him being a bricklayer....
 
Well I class myself as documentary, because I'm documenting the day as it happens. Do I do some groups, yes. Typically around 6 per wedding. But that's around 15 minutes of a 10 hour typical day shoot. So seems a fair call to describe myself that way.
 
Semantics?

Photojournalism is a very specific term related to the type of photographer who covers news / wildlife type events - recording and not interfering to capture the reality of the moment.

Reportage photography is difficult for weddings as you would be reporting back to the couple who employed you of the days events - their wedding.

Documentary is storytelling. The aim is every photo tells a very specific story (eg emotional state, nervousness, excitement, fun etc etc) and when added with the other photos, tells a bigger story. It is not 'candid', but can be made arty if the photographer is skillful enough. It is one of the few photography styles that is taught at university together with a BA (Hons) at the end.
 
Yes. Semantics. It's really of no interest to me.

I document the day as it happens. That's good enough for me. University definitions are of no concern.
 
dkh said:
Semantics?

Photojournalism is a very specific term related to the type of photographer who covers news / wildlife type events - recording and not interfering to capture the reality of the moment.

Reportage photography is difficult for weddings as you would be reporting back to the couple who employed you of the days events - their wedding.

Documentary is storytelling. The aim is every photo tells a very specific story (eg emotional state, nervousness, excitement, fun etc etc) and when added with the other photos, tells a bigger story. It is not 'candid', but can be made arty if the photographer is skillful enough. It is one of the few photography styles that is taught at university together with a BA (Hons) at the end.
Click to expand...
You might have a point -(might) but we're advertising as wedding photographers; Our customers struggle with the difference between licensing and copyright (which makes a difference to the commercial transaction) - have they got time to listen to a lecture about the subtly different styles of photography as taught by our universities?
 
Phil V said:
You might have a point -(might) but we're advertising as wedding photographers; Our customers struggle with the difference between licensing and copyright (which makes a difference to the commercial transaction) - have they got time to listen to a lecture about the subtly different styles of photography as taught by our universities?
Click to expand...

Good point Phil - so why do so many people describe themselves as something they're obviously not? Is it to confuse the client into thinking they're part of this 'new' trendy club or is it, as my experience tells me, to just pick a label that sounds plausible because they can't just be wedding photographers?
 
dkh said:
Good point Phil - so why do so many people describe themselves as something they're obviously not? Is it to confuse the client into thinking they're part of this 'new' trendy club or is it, as my experience tells me, to just pick a label that sounds plausible because they can't just be wedding photographers?
Click to expand...

I think it's that there's only you who's getting excited about this 'labelling' which you've decided says far more about (working) photographers than they'd ever intended. Like a fashion critic analysing the outfit you picked to hang the washing out? A bit like picking an argument with the driver of a 'hackney carriage' because he doesn't have a bale of hay in the boot:)

They've (we've) picked a label that they (we) think will appeal to some customers. As far as it not being totally accurate:shrug:, it doesn't really compare with the labelling of high sugar convenience food as 'low fat' or 'really simple loans to get you through till payday' (at 2700% apr):cautious:

I'm sure if you want a cause to fight in the photography industry there's some far more meaningful ones, where real people are being affected and lots of people are concerned.

You've alluded a couple of times to low quality photographers using these labels - as if the label is the problem :wacky:. Have a moan about the low quality wedding photographers and you'll garner more support and maybe some interesting opposition too. As I've said previously - there are as many photographers shooting awful OCF, dodgy PS cludges to fix what went wrong in camera as there are awful 'documantary photographers' or 'natural light photographers'.
 
dkh said:
I like to take photos of people but I'd like to call myself a 'fine art photographer' - semantics?
Click to expand...

As long as the product you offer matches the description you sell to your client you can call yourself whatever you like. I don't really care.

What I do care about is you choosing some pretty interchangeable terms, adopting some university level descriptions as if they're immutable fact, and then arbitrarily deciding that I really shouldn't describe myself as documentary, but that you'd be happy for me to use reportage.

You don't get to decide. As long as 40 couples per year are happy to book me at £1800+ on the basis of how I sell myself, and the photographs that I show support that description then I'm more than happy with the term 'documentary wedding photographer'. I have never had a paying client tell me my description is wrong.

So far I've seen you claim 180 weddings, yet with no website or anything to support that, simply picking a fight based on semantics. You know who I am, and how I term myself. It's there for all to see. I, quite frankly, have no idea who you are.
 
Phil V said:
I think it's that there's only you who's getting excited about this 'labelling' which you've decided says far more about (working) photographers than they'd ever intended. Like a fashion critic analysing the outfit you picked to hang the washing out? A bit like picking an argument with the driver of a 'hackney carriage' because he doesn't have a bale of hay in the boot:)

They've (we've) picked a label that they (we) think will appeal to some customers. As far as it not being totally accurate:shrug:, it doesn't really compare with the labelling of high sugar convenience food as 'low fat' or 'really simple loans to get you through till payday' (at 2700% apr):cautious:

I'm sure if you want a cause to fight in the photography industry there's some far more meaningful ones, where real people are being affected and lots of people are concerned.

You've alluded a couple of times to low quality photographers using these labels - as if the label is the problem :wacky:. Have a moan about the low quality wedding photographers and you'll garner more support and maybe some interesting opposition too. As I've said previously - there are as many photographers shooting awful OCF, dodgy PS cludges to fix what went wrong in camera as there are awful 'documantary photographers' or 'natural light photographers'.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice Phil - I'm actually not looking for any of the things you've mentioned. I'm just surprised that people pick labels when they don't know what they mean. It might be a norm or an accepted thing here but, isn't this label a description of the way you photograph? The fact that you photograph and are passionate about your photographs is important isn't it? Why not use the correct label to describe your photography?

And, the second point that you sort of picked out is that because of the misconception that documentary, photojournalism and reportage are the same, people who know very little about photography are using these terms or labels to appeal to clients.
 
dkh said:
I have only just joined this forum so please go easy. I have noticed a lot of websites list the photography service as one of the following: documentary / reportage / photojournalist.

What, in your mind, defines a documentary photographer and is this any different to a photojournalist / reportage?
Click to expand...

You seem to have a bee up your butt about this. Simply get out there, shoot what you shoot, and potential customers will either love what you do or not. If you spend your whole live navel gazing and worrying about the other guys, they will go wooshing past you, regardless of how good you are or how good they are
 
dkh said:
Thanks for the advice Phil - I'm actually not looking for any of the things you've mentioned. I'm just surprised that people pick labels when they don't know what they mean. It might be a norm or an accepted thing here but, isn't this label a description of the way you photograph? The fact that you photograph and are passionate about your photographs is important isn't it? Why not use the correct label to describe your photography?

And, the second point that you sort of picked out is that because of the misconception that documentary, photojournalism and reportage are the same, people who know very little about photography are using these terms or labels to appeal to clients.
Click to expand...
so you just want to argue what to everyone else is a pointless academic nuance.

knock yerself out then!(y)
 
Radiohead said:
As long as the product you offer matches the description you sell to your client you can call yourself whatever you like. I don't really care. Semantics ;)

What I do care about is you choosing some pretty interchangeable terms, adopting some university level descriptions as if they're immutable fact, and then arbitrarily deciding that I really shouldn't describe myself as documentary, but that you'd be happy for me to use reportage.

You don't get to decide. As long as 40 couples per year are happy to book me at £1800+ on the basis of how I sell myself, and the photographs that I show support that description then I'm more than happy with the term 'documentary wedding photographer'. I have never had a paying client tell me my description is wrong.

So far I've seen you claim 180 weddings, yet with no website or anything to support that, simply picking a fight based on semantics. You know who I am, and how I term myself. It's there for all to see. I, quite frankly, have no idea who you are.
Click to expand...

I am a little mole, coming out of my little molehill, surrounded by huge mounds of people building / ready built reputations with labels that describe what they do, but yet, when asked what these descriptions mean I get 'semantics' - is that the best you can do? Or did you seriously just pick the 'label' out of a hat?

I know this is winding some of you up but, I don't really see why because you are successful business people with successful businesses with nothing to hide or loose right. I mean I am a nobody so why the under-tones?
 
Give me strength.

Documentary - based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements.

I photograph weddings in a way that is factually accurate and contains no fictional elements. Thus I describe myself as a documentary wedding photographer. It's really not difficult.

Instead of playing the victim ask yourself why you think you are the person best placed to describe what people do.
 
Take good photos, make couples happy, earn a bit of money along the way.

Why over complicate it? :D
 
Radiohead said:
Give me strength.

Documentary - based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements.

I photograph weddings in a way that is factually accurate and contains no fictional elements. Thus I describe myself as a documentary wedding photographer. It's really not difficult.

Instead of playing the victim ask yourself why you think you are the person best placed to describe what people do.
Click to expand...

I am not a victim - I don't buy your services. I offer them. You are still trying to describe what in your mind is the meaning of documentary photography.

Ignorance is bliss and all that.
 
Radiohead said:
Give me strength.

Documentary - based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements.

I photograph weddings in a way that is factually accurate and contains no fictional elements. Thus I describe myself as a documentary wedding photographer. It's really not difficult.

Instead of playing the victim ask yourself why you think you are the person best placed to describe what people do.
Click to expand...

Exactly. and you can "report what is going on" and be documentary at the same time too. one is a subset of the other

Of course, the moment you make an artistic decision, like shooting at f2, choosing a film, compressing the dynamic range, choosing a lens to change perspective, if we want to be totally purist, we are being unfaithful to the true documentary style
 
Phil V said:
so you just want to argue what to everyone else is a pointless academic nuance.

knock yerself out then!(y)
Click to expand...

It does seem an odd reason to join a forum. Mostly we join because we like to 'belong', to build mutually beneficial relationships, to share and to gather technical knowledge.

There is a word for people who join forums to cause trouble - and to set out to deliberately upset people. It's not a nice word, and I'm currently still (after 28 posts) holding onto the 'benefit of the doubt' card. But the RTM option is calling.

You're clearly an intelligent bloke, why the lousy attitude?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top