August 5 Wedding Pix

[ironsickel]

Howdy all. It's 3AM and I've just gotten home from my most recent excursion. No post processing on any of these shots yet. This was a very fun bridal group. Both "the boys" and "the girls" were a tad on the wild side, but I think you'll be able to figure that out for yourself below. :)

Please C&C

#1 Jump High!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0501.jpg

#2
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0502.jpg

#3 Bride's Dad decided (with adult beverage in hand) to jump into the frame
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0503.jpg

#4 Show those garters, girls!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0504.jpg

#5
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0505-1.jpg

#6
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0506.jpg

#7 The boys wanted to "pick up" the bride
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0507-1.jpg

#8 Not to be outdone (anything guys can do, girls can do better)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0508.jpg

#9 Wedding party, assemble! (obligatory Power Rangers Shot)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0509.jpg

#10 Bad to the bone
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0510.jpg

#11
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/08-0511.jpg

[Su-Hannie]

Looks like fun

[paul33]

Great fun ..... my sort of wedding !!!

[tim]

You seem to have made some cool photos. Unfortunately making cool photos isn't what weddings are about, it's about capturing the day, and capturing the relationship between the people in an artistic way. I think the aim of the photographer should be to be invisible and to capture the people, whereas in my experience most of the "fun" photos like these are the photographer saying "go do this and i'll take a photo". I'm not picking on you by the way, it's becoming very common, and I think people need to hear different ideas.

I know you said you'd done no post processing, but there are a lot of technical things that aren't good even considering that. Contrast is low, saturation is low, and there's quite a few underexposed photos. Also beware of shiny foreheads, correct that before you show them the photo. Your subjects are smack bang in the middle of the photo too, you might like to try off centre.

I do like #6 :)

[Dimitry]

You seem to have made some cool photos. Unfortunately making cool photos isn't what weddings are about, it's about capturing the day, and capturing the relationship between the people in an artistic way. I think the aim of the photographer should be to be invisible and to capture the people, whereas in my experience most of the "fun" photos like these are the photographer saying "go do this and i'll take a photo". I'm not picking on you by the way, it's becoming very common, and I think people need to hear different ideas.




While I agree with you that the general idea behind a wedding photographer is to capture the day, I notice like you said yourself, that a lot of people need suggestions. I'd even go further than that and say with all the stuff going on in their head, they just want to get good photos at the end so they leave everything up to the photography from bringing the right skills/equipment, to posing them so the shots come out right.

What I usually try to do myself (I shoot for another photographer and assist her at weddings), is here and there capture some candid photos and go unseen just like you said. I've gotten some of the best shots that way, so I do agree. I think the trick is in the midst of placing them while you're "pretending" to get something *snap* candid shot. Or my favourite is to walk in front of the B&G and set it to the setting I want, turn around, *burst mode snap*

[song4themoon]

All a bit underexposed but that should be possible to fix.

Number 6 I think will be stunning after post processing.. add some cotrast to bring the background out even more!!

[rdking01]

it's about capturing the day

well if this is part of that day i would say well caught...i have shot many weddings where i am the "lurker" capturing the "required shots" and i have had the oppurtunity to share a joyous occasion such as this one. i'll take the fun ones everytime!!

[Phil V]

Unfortunately making cool photos isn't what weddings are about, it's about capturing the day, and capturing the relationship between the people in an artistic way. I think the aim of the photographer should be to be invisible and to capture the people, whereas in my experience most of the "fun" photos like these are the photographer saying "go do this and i'll take a photo". I'm not picking on you by the way, it's becoming very common, and I think people need to hear different ideas.

As I see it, and how I describe it to my Brides, is this;
There are 3 basic types of wedding photographer;
Traditional, formal photo's that record the people that attended the wedding. At it's best this is boring (the reason I gave up wedding photography 10 years ago), at it's worst, it's a bunch of lazy snaps of groups of similarly dressed people.

Traditional / creative, at it's best this is very artistic and glamorous, at it's worst it's cheesy. The OP has made a good job of this style. It doesn't really fit my skill set or personality, but I do try to be creative with my posed shots.

Photojournalistic / Reportage, what Tim described, at it's worst an excuse by inexperienced photographers who can't use flash / don't have the confidence to direct a shoot. At best it creates the most beautiful and moving images that really do tell the story of the day.

To the OP, there are some great ideas here, a little more care in the execution would have made them great images. Personally I'd rather see these than a bunch of weak photo's that have been PP'd to create a set of good 'images', which is fairly common round here, and often gets quite a positive reaction.

[SuzyView]

What lens did you use? When I take portraits of any kind, I like to concentrate on the eyes. Besides the pictures with the shades, I don't see any brightness in the eyes. That may be because of the low resolution, but sometimes, it's the lack of a sharp lens. I enjoyed the series of pictures because I think the B&G will love your pictures, you've captured the fun, but to get wow, you have to pose and allow the subjects to really show their faces.

[tim]

As I see it, and how I describe it to my Brides, is this;
There are 3 basic types of wedding photographer;
Traditional, formal photo's that record the people that attended the wedding. At it's best this is boring (the reason I gave up wedding photography 10 years ago), at it's worst, it's a bunch of lazy snaps of groups of similarly dressed people.

Traditional / creative, at it's best this is very artistic and glamorous, at it's worst it's cheesy. The OP has made a good job of this style. It doesn't really fit my skill set or personality, but I do try to be creative with my posed shots.

Photojournalistic / Reportage, what Tim described, at it's worst an excuse by inexperienced photographers who can't use flash / don't have the confidence to direct a shoot. At best it creates the most beautiful and moving images that really do tell the story of the day.

To the OP, there are some great ideas here, a little more care in the execution would have made them great images. Personally I'd rather see these than a bunch of weak photo's that have been PP'd to create a set of good 'images', which is fairly common round here, and often gets quite a positive reaction.

I agree with you to a point. There's boring and traditional, there's pure photojournalistic, and then there's what's quite common, recording with some artistic work. You can be artistic without making people run, jump, and hold people across their arms. That can help people loosen up, but in general it's photos for the sake of making a few cool photos, which in my opinion isn't what weddings are about. I try to get across the emotion and the connection between people, rather than have them do silly things. I do a few fun things to loosen people up, or if they want to do them, but I rarely suggest it lately.

[ironsickel]

All a bit underexposed but that should be possible to fix.

Number 6 I think will be stunning after post processing.. add some cotrast to bring the background out even more!!
Agreed

#6 Redux
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/sunset02.jpg

And one more cuz I can:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/ironsickel/sunset01.jpg

[ironsickel]

Thanks all for the comments.

Appreciate the notice by some of you on the underexposures and lack of contrast/color sat. I was aware of this when I originally posted, exhausted at 3AM after 14 hours of shooting and 2 hours drive time, which is why even in my deteriorating state of mind, I bothered to mention that there had been no post processing at all. Thanks for pointing it out, though. I'd be embarrassed to let something like that slip through. :oops:

As for Tim's comments about me holding the camera, and pointing at the party to "do something cool" that was not my intent, nor my practice. The whole line of reasoning that the point of wedding photography is to be invisible and capture people's spirit in an artistic way...a great creedo to be sure, but is only one interpretation of what "wedding photography should be".

I prescribe to the notion of giving the customer what they want. I am providing them a service, not subjecting them to my notion of what pictures I force upon them, regardless of how artistic they may or not be. They're the one's paying me to shoot their wedding and I should frame my artistic tendencies within what they have given me to work with. Period.

That said, Tim's obviously never worked in the Midwest States, where the mere mention of photojournalism prompts questions of what a newspaper has to do with a wedding. And I have personally seen bride's eyes glass over when I show them those types of shots. Unfortunately, I'm in one of those pockets of the country where PJ simply has not caught on. Or one could say it could be a testimonial to my lack of skill in that area. Whatever. I have talked to several photographers in the area who lament the same issues I have.

So...in my area, we have the option of Traditional, or Traditional. I try to make my Traditional shots not so boring. If that makes me a bad photographer, I'm cool with that. I'm playing with my strengths and with what the market in my area will support. I do sneak in the PJ style shots too, but they simply don't sell. But stick the bride in sunglasses and the parents love it. Go figure.

One last point before I get off the soapbox, this particular bride and groom had just recently graduated college, and were both involved in a fraternity. Most of the wedding party were from the frat and nearly all the silly group shots were suggested to me by the party. Heavy drinking was involved (not by me) :D, but all were having a good time. I think I accurately captured that. I can see where one might think this was a transparent attempt by the photographer to make a boring wedding look cool. But this was me accurately recording what happened with this group while attempting to take formals. And I am not ashamed of that no matter how much scorn is heaped upon me by the PJ elite.

Also of note, pic #3...that was not posed by me. I was attempting to get the standard formal of the B&G with the mother of groom when the "slightly tipsy" father of bride hopped onto a rock in frame and began making a speech. So, yes, you can have PJ mixed with traditional.:rolleyes:

[tim]

I've never been anywhere near the US :p If that's what the B&G wanted then great, you did what they asked. I wasn't specifically picking on you, even though this is in your thread, as I said I was talking about the trend towards these types of photos, usually by less experienced photgraphers.

I wouldn't call what I do PJ either, more of a mixture of styles.

[Arnie1]

ironsickle, your shots remind me of one of Tims I saw a while ago.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=151220 #5

Theres a photographer near me that does a lot of this fun gimmicky stuff, not my bag at all but he's always fully booked....so there is a market for it, and I'm sure the right kind of fun personalities will love it.

By the way, I think it takes some considerable people skills to get good shots in this style, you seem to have that:D

[tim]

Heh, like I said I do a few things to loosen people up.

[Padawan Dad]

On the topic of "styles," I thought that I would just add my 2 cents. I think that too many photographers put way too much stock in "their style." "Style" to me, always screams "FAD!" I always avoid the term.

Photography is subjective... period. There really is no right way, or wrong way to do it... artistically speaking.

I really don't know what my "style" would be. But I think it is best to just shoot naturally and not force yourself to try and pull off a particular style because the latest and greatest photographer is doing it. There is way too much imitation in this field and not enough originality.

Most of my clients don't really give a "you know what" about "style." They are far more interested in my reputation and personality, than the pictures I take. Most don't have an artistic eye, and most don't know the difference between PJ, traditional, abstract, or whatever else there is out there... (in my experiences.) I'm not saying to give them crap because they don't know any better. I'm just saying that most of my clients have made their decission to hire me based on my reputation. There are VERY few who have ever questioned style, or bring up artistic differences.

I have only shot about 40 weddings thus far in my very young rookie career, and the most in-depth that any of my clients ever got into style was: "Can you do that color thing, when you have B&W, and some color in the picture?"

I have seen alot of fellow photographers go down the tubes focusing on a particular "style." Keep it loose, keep it open, keep it natural... avoid promoting style and limiting yourself. Likened to becoming a slave to fashion, one can become a slave to photographic "style."

This is just an opinion/observation. It has worked for me thus far.

Sorry about the soapbox rant.

BTW: With some PP, I think that the B&G will be very happy with the photos!

[Arnie1]

I really don't know what my "style" would be. But I think it is best to just shoot naturally and not force yourself to try and pull off a particular style because the latest and greatest photographer is doing it. There is way too much imitation in this field and not enough originality.

Think I can help you here Bill!, on your web site under About Me it says....."My style is a mix of traditional and journalistic photography"

I think styles are here to stay and just about any picture will/can be pigeon holed into one of them. I hear the new buzz word is freestyle wedding photography! Wow!!! how do we define that one!


Simon

[Padawan Dad]

Think I can help you here Bill!, on your web site under About Me it says....."My style is a mix of traditional and journalistic photography"

I think styles are here to stay and just about any picture will/can be pigeon holed into one of them. I hear the new buzz word is freestyle wedding photography! Wow!!! how do we define that one!


Simon

Yes, you did get me on that one ;) But I really can't place a particular style for me. Styles are definitely here to stay, but constantly change. My whole point in a nutshell, was to say, don't let mainstream dictate your work, let your natural "style" dictate it. Don't get caught up in "style of photography." It often limits an individual, and lacks originality.

I guess we all have to put a name to how we shoot.

[Arnie1]

I agree with your sentiment of following ones own instinct and aiming for originality, but....someoene will always tag that image with a "whatever" style, beit candid, PJ, traditional or directed.

Cheers
Simon

[Phil V]

Bill, Id have to disagree with you here (or as per your website - agree with you:wink: )

There's a big difference between fashions and fads and a shooting 'style' as I referred to it. Presentation techniques and fashions might change, but an approach to the job is something that we just have, it's our personality. We all have a 'style' that's dictated by our skills, personality, influences and beliefs about how weddings should be shot (we've seen lots of threads containing the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of how to do it properly).

In my experience there are a awful lot of 'traditional' photographers out there, they'd say they had no style. IMHO That's because they put zero thought into how they shoot. They turn up at weddings every week and shout out a bunch of groups they want to photograph. Their photo's say nothing about the wedding day and even less about the personalities involved. They often look down their noses at other styles of photography, and will justify their opinions because they've been around for years and been making money. They might also lean on the word 'Professional' to justify their consistant approach and results.

Then there are more creative types, who set off to do something different to the above, they try to have some fun, try to capture the personality of the couple (or even paste a personality onto them). They follow fashions, and may even offer 'PJ style' photo's too. However scratch the surface and you'll realise that they actually recreate a lot of the same 'candid' shots every wedding. They will often put down photographers who only shoot traditional or PJ, because they insist they can give you any 'style' of photography you want. This 'style' might only consist of post processing techniques rather than a genuine shooting style (gritty B&W = PJ, high key and/or cross processed = 'high fashion' or modern).

A true wedding PJ can't afford to spend hours setting up group shots or couple shots, because they're actually too busy trying to document the day. Sometimes they'll use flash (subtley), they may even 'dress' some pictures, in the way true photojournalists have always done. But the honesty of their intentions should be obvious.

[MHP]

could you photograph:

#1. prince harry's wedding

#2 Pamela Andersons wedding

#3. Another photographers wedding.

confidently?

All three would be photographed in a different way, If you can't see yourself being able to cover any of these three weddings in each of their respected styles then you have some learning to do.

A Master photographer doesnt have a style, he/she incorporates all of them and focusses them to the clients need. it takes a lot of weddings which incorporate a lot of different styles to give you enough confidence to say, yes I can do that. Once you're there i think you kinda realize that, while you're on the way you set yourself into these 'styles' because theyre your best assets and theyre safe and give you confidence, but as you grow you learn.

A style is a box, break out of the box!

and if you seriously answered yes to all three, kudos to you, because you've obviously travelled the road and never let yourself be contained in a silly 'style' box.


OP- great images, they look like happy images for a happy couple and family. Yeah they coulda been better, in all sorts of ways, and no doubt you'll go over them and scrutinize them daily, but they could've been a lot worse too!

[Lin-z]

Looks like the wedding party had a really good time... I think its great to make the wedding photos be fun...

[Arnie1]

Phil, interesting post which pretty much sums it all up, I like your thinking.

One point though, take the style of many of our mentors, Joe Buissink, Yervant, Martin Schembri, john michael cooper, Doug Boutwell, Gino Lucadamo...to name just a few, they all direct heavily. They almost create a role play/theatrical situation and shoot to create natural looking pictures.....can we still call this PJ? I'm not so sure.

As Yervant says in the Masters of Wedding Photography DVD, "its all BS" its just good photography that makes the difference.

Simon

[Padawan Dad]

could you photograph:

#1. prince harry's wedding

#2 Pamela Andersons wedding

#3. Another photographers wedding.

confidently?

All three would be photographed in a different way, If you can't see yourself being able to cover any of these three weddings in each of their respected styles then you have some learning to do.

A Master photographer doesnt have a style, he/she incorporates all of them and focusses them to the clients need. it takes a lot of weddings which incorporate a lot of different styles to give you enough confidence to say, yes I can do that. Once you're there i think you kinda realize that, while you're on the way you set yourself into these 'styles' because theyre your best assets and theyre safe and give you confidence, but as you grow you learn.

A style is a box, break out of the box!

and if you seriously answered yes to all three, kudos to you, because you've obviously travelled the road and never let yourself be contained in a silly 'style' box.




Exactly what I am saying, MHP!

I think my point is somewhat getting mis-interputed. All I am saying is don't pick a style and stick to it. Experiment, and try new things that come naturally. If you get caught up in a particular "style," you hinder yourself from being creative... Think out of the box!

Really didn't mean to hijack this thread... my apologies to the OP!!!!

[MHP]

no mate, didn't miss interpret you, just wanted to say my thoughts ;-) and help the OP in the process, i wouldn't want someone who wasn't going to put themselves in a box think that they have to, to be good at what they do. There is a process to it, and going through the different 'styles' is part of the process, one day you wake up and go hmm, well i can't really say i have a style because i've done it this way, and that way, and this way, so hmm, well actually maybe thats a good thing because i have more knowledge of what it takes to get what the customer wants. But i can't say i do a certain style anymore can I?

and yeah ARNIE1.... most awesome, award winning images are set up, even though they don't look it. theres certainly a trick to it.. and yeah, it is all bs, good photography is good photography, but there are little tricks that have to do with the human mind that can help you no end, thats what composition and light are. like why the rule of thirds?? anyone know? nope, its just that they look better. even something as simple as how the fingers should look on a hand to make the fingers look longer. Theres just so much to know!, but dont ever be disheartened by that fact, don't ever let it get on top of you, because we all started at the beginning and there is no ending, and keep an open mind to the possibilities, and don't stick to the rules, learn them then learn how to break them.


ever sit in front of the telly and watch how a movie has been directed?, every second of it?, man some images and plays of light and composition just blows me away at times! Sometimes theres like 1000s of perfect images one after the other after the other. Its a constant teacher!

all the best to all of you and I hope you all succeed in your quests and endeavours!!!

[Dimitry]

Awesome thread guys! I'm loving reading all these comments because that's exactly the direction I want to go in. At the moment I'm mostly focusing on my technical photography skills but at the same I'm trying to develope the so called "soft skills" for photography also. I think that's where the true "professional" is distinguished from someone who just knows how to use the camera right.

One quick question...PJ = ??? (I'm guessing pijamas though I know that's not the right word for this context :D)

[Phil V]

could you photograph:

#1. prince harry's wedding

#2 Pamela Andersons wedding

#3. Another photographers wedding.

confidently? Yes I could, photograph each of these competently and comfortably. However, don't be deluded by my MASTERY of photography, I wouldn't necessarily be giving the customer what they wanted.

Our customers choose us because, they have seen and like our work, feel that they could have a nice relationship with us (like our personality) and we are within their budget.

The real question is; Would any of the above ask me to photograph their wedding?
1, NO, we're a 2 man band, and couldn't really scale up to such an event.
2, NO we haven't got the budget to pay her to do the job.
3, Absolutely, because he'd have an understanding of my 'style' and know before he asked me that I was suited to the task.

All three would be photographed in a different way, If you can't see yourself being able to cover any of these three weddings in each of their respected styles then you have some learning to do.
As above, different markets demand different things, I wouldn't buy a video recorder and expect it to do the laundry, just because it's the best VCR and it should be able to ADAPT!

And BTW, if any of us believe we don't have lots of learning to do, we've definitely headed off in the wrong direction. I'm yet to hear from a great photographer (or expert in any field) who claims that their learning is finished.

A Master photographer doesnt have a style, he/she incorporates all of them and focusses them to the clients need.


I think if you look closely you'll find that a master photographer does indeed have a style. You'll find that the people that claim to have no style of their own and who have mastered all aspects of anything will generally be covered by the phrase 'Jack of all trades'. There's a MASSIVE difference between being 'good enough' and being 'Great'.

Simon mentioned the Masters of wedding photography DVD, have a look at those guys. They certainly don't look like they're being held back by a style. In fact you'll find that having a specific marketing approach, being driven and talented, has got them a lot further than being 'flexible'.

I think it's easy to get confused between specialising in an area (Good Thing), and being bound by a small amount of specific experience (Bad Thing).

I certainly don't advocate that any new photographers should limit their learning by specialising in a small area of photography. However I would suggest that anyone who wants to move from being very good to being great should analyse what works for them and learn to take advantage of their particular personal strengths.

If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to show me a link to Ansel Adams' great portrait book and to some of HCB's best landscape work.

FINALLY
Apologies for seemingly hijacking the thread

[Phil V]

One point though, take the style of many of our mentors, Joe Buissink, Yervant, Martin Schembri, john michael cooper, Doug Boutwell, Gino Lucadamo...to name just a few, they all direct heavily. They almost create a role play/theatrical situation and shoot to create natural looking pictures.....can we still call this PJ? I'm not so sure.

Simon

Go back and look at the MOWP DVD, you'll see the 'genuine' PJ shooters, Dennis Reggie and Geoff Ascough actually do manage to do it without the direction (BTW I did acknowledge in my post that most PJ style shooters used some direction).

clarity PJ = Photojournalist

[MHP]

yes phil, we're all learning, and there is no end to it, which is the point I'm trying to make. yeah they do have a style, it incorporates all they have learnt and their personal style grows, but on the way keeped learning and propbably didn't lock themselves into a box, or maybe did but learnt from it, like us all.

Like i said, it's a natural progression,... Human Nature. But not all are willing to analize, learn and grow.

I totally agree with all you say.


LMAO with your answer to wedding #2 :-)

[Maureen Souza]

IMHO, many people aren't comfortable with un-natural poses, whether it be on their wedding day or any other occasion. I have run into very few people who want funky or ultra-fancy photos of their wedding day....most want a more natural feel of their emotions to come out in the pictures.
Most importantly, there is no right or wrong...only what makes the customer's satisfied.