One issue that affects all reportage photographers, whether at war or weddings, is how far do you go in order to provide comprehensive coverage? How much is too much?
An extreme example of this is the paparazzi coverage which led to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
In general, and as illustrated by that case, pursuit of a photo is never worth someone’s life. But what about more typical circumstances which any of us may encounter? In providing a comprehensive coverage of a wedding should I be on the lookout for that which may be embarrassing (ie: too much to drink), upsetting (Bride – or Groom – arrives very late), humiliating (split trousers happens surprisingly often as in-laws squeeze into clothes bought optimistically!).
These may not be circumstances which you would want to see at your wedding, but if they happened, if they made a talking point during the day would you want to be reminded of them as part of a multi faceted event, are they a colourful contribution or an unwelcome memory? Might you want the photos, but not in the album please? Would you want to remember your wedding through rose tinted glasses, or is a ‘warts and all’ approach more likely to make you smile when showing the album to your grandchildren?
Your thoughts on this will be most welcome, especially as it’s an issue which returns to the fore again and again, and about which I still have no definitive position.
I would omit humiliating pictures.
I wouldn’t include the unhappy/embarrassing photographs as I think most people want to remember the positive moments and try to forget the unhappy ones.
Warts and all is how I like it. They may be humiliating today but they’ll be something to laugh at in the future. Perhaps you should offer a service where an additional album full of the more sleazy and embarrassing bits is provided but delivered years later on the couple’s twenty-fifth wedding anniversary.
I know this is a little off subject but stephen farrell is too far. That guy deserves to be shot!