Wedding Photographs - What is Your Style?

[Mike]

I guess I'd be in the contemporary area. I generally let them get on with the day but will steer one or two shots to how I want them.

[Peacefield]

I guess I'm not understanding the purpose of this string. Are you asking us about our style?

I'll tell you that I think it's a mistake (often commited by much of the industry itself) to characterize a photographic style as traditional or photojournalistic. Those aren't styles at all, they are methods. A style is what comes through your photographs. My images have a certain look; a feel about them. The descripters I strive for are soft, romantic, intimate, rich, warm, etc. Some of those images are posed, some are taken journalistically, but neither of those terms describe what I call my style.

Regarding the way I work, I've learned over the years to blend the two approaches. Back in the day, I was traditional because that's what we all were and that's what couples expected. As journalistic approaches emerged, I was happy to adopt them as it made it much easier to get good quality images. What I mostly do now is blend the two approaches; infusing journalistic principles when I'm setting up for a traditional shot.

[Toogy]

Why define yourself? just be who you are. Do what you are comfortable and good at, don't label yourself.

[shaggymatt]

Spray and Pray :twisted:

[HMetal]

We have a style. I don't think it necessarily fits in any single type or genre but it encompasses them all and which of the above-noted styles we use depends on the client and the location.

I resigned myself long ago to not get pigeon-holed into any one style. Stay creative and you don't have to worry about labels..

[tim]

IMHO special effects are mostly for n00bs or people who need to add something to make ordinary photos look interesting.

[david lee]

But what happens when a good photographer applies special effects to good photos?
They become great photos.

Over here, and I am sure in many other parts of the world we have 3 types of wedding photography.

Traditional... as described above where the photos are formal and poses are painstakingly carried out.

Photojournalist, which is fly on the wall type photography where the photographer does not interfere at all in the wedding party, he is there to just record the evemts as they unfold. And..

Portrait Photojournalist which is Photojournalistic but mixed with staged portrature.

Styles are another thing entirely as Peacefield says.
For example, Damian lovegrove always shoots f4 and makes a point of never showing the sky in any of his photos, thats HIS style.

[infinite007]

IMHO special effects are mostly for n00bs or people who need to add something to make ordinary photos look interesting.

+1 :confused:

[elisesanchez]

I'll tell you that I think it's a mistake (often commited by much of the industry itself) to characterize a photographic style as traditional or photojournalistic. Those aren't styles at all, they are methods.


This is a very great point. These are methods to shooting. But choosing a method will surely dictate what your style will be to some extent.

[gmacmt]

I really dont think that cross processing is a "special effect". That is just a basic processing technique.

I dont know what the people saying "special effects are for n00bs" define as special effects. I would tentatively agree with the argument in the area of selective color, tilt shift imitation, fall off blur and some others would be a way to make an otherwise crappy image look better. Not only that, but these techniques are quickly being overdone and will soon become cliche.

That being said any of those techniques, aside from selective color :), can be used by top pros to great effect. Not sure if I would make the same blanket statement when there are professionals out there that are using these techniques and are producing better images than anyone in this thread.

BTW, JasonOne is a troll.