Timeless Wedding Photographers?

I was reading a discussion about what trends in wedding photography will look dated in 1-2 decades from now, and it got me thinking - who are some wedding photographers that you would consider to have a timeless style?

Also, are there any examples of photographers who have shots from 1-2 decades ago that you consider timeless?

Everything looks dated after a while due to fashion changing along the way. For me there is only ever shooting in the time in which you exist. 1-2 decades from now there will be cameras with better dynamic ranges and pictures where you can selectively select the focus point after they have been shot (think about the Lytro and what it does).

Well yes, I suppose - but what about aspects like lighting, posing, and composition? I feel a lot of those aspects are timeless. Even though they may have some dated aspects, aren't there some photographers who exhibit exceptional skills in those timeless ones that set them apart from the others?

Lighting posing and composition have their roots back in the origins of the art world. The first painters etc.

Is that your definition of "timeless"... lighting, posing and composition?

I would consider those timeless aspects, although I'm not sure if those are the ONLY ones. Maybe the ability to capture emotion?

I think the answer to the question (what is timeless more than who does it) is more easily answered when you consider what is NOT timeless.

In my mind, what will look oldest the fastest is all of the affected post processing that is so frequently done. Those photographers who build their brand and look around whatever it happens to be for them; desaturated images, or the faded-photo look, or the fasion magazine look, or whatever else will find their work looking dated fairly quickly.

I use very few actions or faddish processing techniques for albums, as I think they'll date very quickly.

I personally don't see how this question could be about anything other than how images are processed. Given that "timeless" would denote some resemblance of images throughout history over time you could only therefore really consider "black and white" or clean (pretty much SOOC) images with minimal edited "timeless" on that basis.

Well do you suppose that a photo cannot be exceptional without utilizing a fad? Couldn't there be a photographer from 20 years ago whose style has stood the test of time? I know some things will be out of their control like clothing and hair styles, but perhaps their ability to pose, light and capture emotion really sets them apart from their peers? Look at Ansel Adam's work as an example of timeless style (I realize he isn't a wedding photographer, but that's why I'm asking for some examples). He doesn't utilize anything I would consider a fad, and yet his photography is still regarded as some of the best. And I suppose I'm not looking for photographers who NEVER utilized fads, I just want to see some examples of the best wedding photographers from the past so I can see which aspects have stood up to aging, whereas some aspects have not. By learning to improve in areas which are more timeless, I hope to improve my own shooting style.

Then it begs the question, should I ignore fads? Or should I try and follow the times and change my style to match the current trends? If fads are what the people want, then shouldn't I give people what they want?

Ainoko wrote in post #16859338
Then it begs the question, should I ignore fads? Or should I try and follow the times and change my style to match the current trends? If fads are what the people want, then shouldn't I give people what they want?

If you are in business as a wedding photographer the only thing that matters is what actually sells. It doesn't matter fad/no fad or what style you have if you can't sell it. As a business you should follow your bottom line.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16859382
If you are in business as a wedding photographer the only thing that matters is what actually sells. It doesn't matter fad/no fad or what style you have if you can't sell it. As a business you should follow your bottom line.

I have to agree with this. We cannot know what will stand the test of time so it's incumbent upon us to give our clients whatever they want and continue getting gigs. Getting back to the OP's question, the images that will most likely stand the test of time are images that affect us emotionally, not aesthetically. We identify with other people's emotions so those images that best capture, and express, strong emotional content will be 'timeless' IMHO.

I agree, but there's a difference between having a style of photography that defines you and your brand with simply doing some stuff to satisfy your customer. I hate things like jump shots, for instance, but of course I'll be doing one if my client specifically asks for it.

At the end of the day, from an over-all style perspecitve, I actually shoot for ME! I shoot what I like, what looks good to me, what speaks to me, etc. For some people, my style is exactly what they're looking for and they're delighted to have found me. For others who are looking for something different, they were never going to be my clients anyway.

My parents were married back in the 50's. I look at their album and it is loaded with charm. Most of their photos would never be confused with shots taken today, though. The primary difference is that nearly ever photo in their album was posed or created. The approach today is to take photos that are more natural; if they didn't just happen, we at least make it look like maybe it did just happen.

But that kind of shift is a long-term trend, not a fad. To me, long term trend = good, fads = bad.

Classy will never go out of style. The problem is to have enough talent in order to create such images. Ability to find the right light, right angle and right editing style will probably help in creating something close to timeless. Yeah, i know its obvious .

I'm not sure that's the best advice. For someone starting out, I'd say it's bad advice, with respect. Often, what sells isn't great - it's popular in the short term, but may bury you in competition in the long term. It's like the ice-cream seller at the beach selling vanilla cones because they're the most popular, but failing to take into account the twenty other guys doing the exact same thing right next to him. If he sold strawberry cones, they might be less popular, but he's cornering the market because no-one else is pushing them. He wins.

Of course, if you're selling the prettiest vanilla cones at the same price as the competitors, you might have the edge, but still...

I think these days, with the photographic market getting increasingly saturated by people selling vanilla photos, you need to develop a point of difference. And you can develop a POD without shooting images that will become dated. I genuinely think that a good photo - something with emotion, creativity, and uniqueness - will stand the test of time.

Also, thinking about your bottom line should come late in the game, not early - or not at all. It might sound cliched, but those people who do it for love tend to do it best. And like any other industry, I think you need to do any jobs you can get your hands on at first (and I'm talking several years), to learn and develop a portfolio - without thinking about $.

To answer the OP more directly: I'm not familiar with older wedding photographers. I'm not even very familiar with modern wedding photographers to be honest.

But the most famous photogs in other areas are older folk - guys like Ansel Adams. Good photos, simply edited, will never be out of style.