11/07/10
I often get asked about the differences and or boundaries between various genres of wedding photography by brides and grooms who are concerned that if they opt for a particular style of photographic coverage they won't necessarily be getting what they or their nearest and dearest really want from the wedding album. The problem is that current marketing wisdom leads many photographers to adopt some kind of category label, thereby offering
'reportage wedding photography', 'contemporary wedding photography', 'wedding portraiture', 'wedding photojournalism' or the like, which can be very confusing for potential clients. The reality is that what most couples actually want is simply an exciting, varied and attractive record of their day, that will hopefully be as desirable to look at in twenty years as it is on the day they take delivery of it. Ensuring that the couple's collection of wedding photos lives up to this expectation as well as possible invariably involves bringing a whole host of techniques and stylistic elements to bare on both the capture and post processing of their wedding images. One of the crucial skills of the photographer (or their designer) is to then present the results as a cohesive whole, via an album, slideshow sequence or series of prints, which brings all of these stylistic and technical variations together with a sense of unity. For this reason as much as any other the modern story-book or wedding-book style album is evolving as a work of art in itself as opposed to simply being a collection of associated images.
While there is nothing inherently wrong or bad about working exclusively in one particular genre (in fact many high end practitioners have built their reputation on doing exactly this), sadly some photographers use assumed boundaries and stylistic conventions rather more as an excuse not to develop the skills necessary to offer alternatives than as a reason to actually explore the expressive possibilities of their chosen comfort zone. All too often I hear clients saying things like
'I looked at my friends album and couldn't believe that there wasn't a single straight picture - everything was at odd angles or partially obscured' or maybe
'all the pictures were so heavily processed that the whole thing lost all sense of reality - these weren't memories - more like fantasies'. Of course it's great to portray the drama and spontaneity of a wedding with low capture angles, high contrast monochrome, candid shots and the like; or to capture those perfect, 'moment out of time' images of the bride looking exquisitely beautiful; but isn't it also just as important to capture a clear and uncluttered record of those gathered for the occasion or the crucial moments of the ceremony and official proceedings?
During pre-wedding consultations I'm always careful to persuade the client that capturing those
'traditional' and
'expected' shots is a good idea. I usually do this under the guise that parents or other
'older generation' relatives will probably appreciate them. However the simple fact is that, regardless of preferences and prejudices expressed in advance, I've not worked with a single couple that hasn't eventually wanted text book shots like the exchange of rings, signing of the register, whole group formal portrait and the cutting of the cake in the final album. Newly evolving styles and techniques will always have a place in enhancing a wedding album but changing fashions should never be allowed to unduly distort one of the most important documents made of many people's lifetimes.
