To kick off the new blog section of the website it seems like a good idea to have a post which will hopefully engage readers and get people commenting – some sort of debate. With that in mind, let’s consider the different styles of wedding photography available.
Traditional wedding photography tends to be formal in style, with pictures of the couple, with and without various family members, the best man, bridesmaids and so on, usually posing on the steps of the church or registry office.
Over the last few years however, new styles of wedding photography have emerged. Some photographers adopt a fine art style, focusing on detailed and exacting composition, while others adopt a more free-form approach, treating the wedding like a news event and capturing images of moments throughout the day. In this style of wedding photo, images are likely to be taken of the guests, and anybody or anything that catches the photographer’s eye, rather than just concentrating on the couple, building a more complete picture of the day as a whole.
The arguments for classical wedding photography are basically that it pleases the older generation, produces guaranteed results and no surprises. You have a known quality and a good photographer can obtain very good results by organising the positioning, the body language and so on, and control lighting and composition. Sceptics might argue however that this is just a record of the clothes worn on a certain day, or that it is dull and boring and lacks creativity. When looking back years later, formal photographs may not convey emotions and memories – just artificial posing.
On the other hand reportage photography records what is happening in real time on a spontaneous basis and gives more flavour of the day, it brings out the emotions and will produce a unique album about the function. It is not the photographer’s idea of what should be but a series of cameos which should be much more interesting. It catches people off guard and one can pick up all the side shows and interesting sub-plots and it brings the whole day to life. The events of the day dictate the images captured, which represent things as they actually occur, rather than only getting artificial, posed pictures. A wedding album compiled in this style will have a natural narrative, and tell the visual story of the wedding day from start to finish.
So, readers, where do you stand? Which is better, formal wedding photography or a more modern reportage style?
Tags: photography, weddings
Personally I’d opt for the reportage style. Having said that, it’s always good to mix it up, and a wedding is one of the few occasions when you should be allowed to have your cake and eat it too.
I kind of agree with Balbooze. My favourite photos generally emerge in the ‘reportage’ part of my photography, however it has to be said that I’m not thereby doing anything different to what can be done by any amateur with a sense of timing and composition. As a pro I’m supposed to be offering a service which will otherwise not be available to the client, and in that respect the classical posed shots become extra valuable, they show the clients off in a manner to which they aspire – beautiful, individual, really at their best – is this not what any of us want???
True, anyone can take a good snapshot but the best reportage photographers (and I count you among them) are storytellers and that is the hardest job of all.
I think there’s room for both styles really. The traditional posed pictures on the steps of the church or whatever are probably more to appeal to the families and friends than the couple themselves though – especially parents and grandparents. I think the photos that will evoke the best memories are the ones which capture something funny, or poignant, and they are likely to be more spontaneous. They’re the ones that may make you smile in years to come. The yawning man in the picture on your homepage is a perfect example.
I like the reportage photography as I think it is an accurate way of caputuring the moment. If it was my wedding day, I think the idea of having to pose for all those structured photographs would send me running for the hills, in fact, when I was a little girl and I was forced to do this my Mum would often find me hiding behind a gravestone as I didn’t want my picture taking. I think I would have been a ‘better behaved’ little girl if this kind of photography had been chosen instead.
Hmmm. I have to say that one of the many things about the idea of a wedding that leaves me cold – and running from the altar as if someone had set fire to me – is the idea of Formal Pictures. Whereas reportage might be rather fabulous. As long as I was looked quite marvellous in a non-posed yet poised way, of course.
I definitely prefer the reportage style, but some of the guests may end up missing from the album. I would therefore make sure to check whose pictures are a ‘must have’ for the clients.
English weddings are inherently boring, everybody tries to jazz theres up thinking its out there and different BIG MISTAKE!
At least your pics make a great difference to a tired routine!!!
We were lucky enough to have both styles of photography for our wedding and we remain delighted with both sets of photos some 5 years on. We still have many shots on display in our home, the majority of which are reportage, the in-laws however, preferred the traditional photos. Personally, I think that whilst the traditional style perhaps offers a more timeless quality, the reportage style (in our case at least) better captured the essence of the day.
For me wedding photography is about producing enduring flashbacks, images of what will most likely be one of the most memorable days in a couples life. Personally the most memorable images are the ones that just stick. Be they black and white ones that I have of myself attempting to play cricket at the age of 5, or boldly running away from an overzealous parent with a garden hose (still 5!), of the more more latent ones, recordings of bodacious holidays and debauched drunken nights. Be they fond memories of childhood, old girlfriends or past relatives, there is one thing that they all have in common. They all do without the glitz and gloss that seems to have become typical of the traditional wedding photograph. Why pay what can be a considerable amount of money for a professional photographer to simply put the old matrimonial routine into practice and produce stereotypical wedding images? Why do this when by adopting a more reportage style of shooting you would surely end up with more naturally enduring images. Every bride wants the glowing atmosphere of the archetypal wedding shot, something reminiscent of Marlene or Marylyn. But take it from someone who has had to sit through to many wedding folders to remember, the most distinctive captures are those that have captured something true, ones where you can actually recognise what you know to be true of the couple in question. And not just some photoshopped glory shot.
Good post, I can’t say that I agree with everything that was said, but very good information overall:)