# Weddings:  Photojournalism VS posed



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

Ok, I'd really like to start a conversation about this.  

As a photographer, I see a ton of photos.  Mine and others.  I see a TON of posed shots  when I view FB and forums.  Some beautiful shots to be sure, however, I often wonder how it effects the client and I wonder why I don't see ceremony and venue stuff.  Not just this forum, but pretty much all of them.  They consist of "pretty pretties".  All the posed shots and details shots.


And a LOT of clients LOVE the pretty pretties.  But I wonder if they even got to go to their own reception?  Did they spend all day being posed and directed?  Was it worth it in the long run?  Did they sacrifice the real moments because they were concentrating on all the posed stuff?  Were they pissed about posing for so much time on their big day?  Or were they happy with it?

Why don't photographers post the real moments?  The stuff you can't pose?

Again, I'm not making a judgement here.  I'm wanting to know what people value more.  Real moments that they can relive?  Or set up moments?


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

The above are all unposed moments.  I've got posed moments as well, but we take a 5 minute break for those.  I'd really like to hear your thoughts on Photojournalism Weddings VS non PJ weddings.  I think this would be a great discussion.


----------



## mwcfarms (Sep 12, 2011)

I think a good assortment of both is the key to being truly successful. She (thebride) is going to love the candid moments because she can't be everywhere at once and misses soo much on the day, while the MOB and FOB and MOG etc will appreciate the posed family shots just as much.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 12, 2011)

#6 looks like an impromptu honeymoon.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 12, 2011)

I was going to mention, last week, that you are one of the only photographer who regularly posts all the extra stuff...the pretty pretties, as you call them.  

They certainly are important to the whole product of wedding photography, and I guess they could be shared more often.  And it should be said that capturing these things, these moments, is a definite skill...and to be a good wedding photographer, one should be able to capture these things...to capture the 'feel' of the wedding day.

But part of why I think they don't get shared all that often, is that they are often personal moments.  They have great meaning to people who know the people in the photos...but probably less meaning to strangers who don't know these people at all.  

For example, a photo of some (possibly drunk) guests doesn't mean much to me (besides noticing things like good lighting & exposure etc.), but to the Bride, it may mean a whole lot that her uncle Joe was having a great time at her wedding.  

So when photographers share images, especially when they choose photos for their website/portfolio, it's usually the higher profile 'money' shots.  The B&G or just the bride, in a wonderfully posed & lit photo.  It's rare to see a photographer's website that leads off with a photo of the bride and her grandparents in a posed group shot.  (but that's certainly a shot that she will want during the day).  

Another thing to consider is the number of photos that we share.  You share 50 photos from a wedding...where as most might only share 5-10.  So while many of these 'extra' shots might be good, they aren't the ones that get shared.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

Hi Dee.  I totally understand what you are saying.  We get those shots  too, but in that 5 minute time period.  (Family formals take about 20 minutes).  Here are a few of those:


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

LOL, Traveler!  I just love the shot for the Spanx alone. I think it's hysterical!


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> I was going to mention, last week, that you are one of the only photographer who regularly posts all the extra stuff...the pretty pretties, as you call them.
> 
> They certainly are important to the whole product of wedding photography, and I guess they could be shared more often.  And it should be said that capturing these things, these moments, is a definite skill...and to be a good wedding photographer, one should be able to capture these things...to capture the 'feel' of the wedding day.
> 
> ...



Big Mike.  Wow.  You said a mouthfull of very wise things here.  And that is what I'm wondering about.  You nailed it.  Should I just show the pretties, or should I show more of the entire story.  I feel like I might be boring people sometimes by showing so many photos, but at the same time, I want to tell the FULL story, hoping it will make more sense.

And I totally understand what you are saying about potentially embarrasing shots.  Oh lordy, do I have a ton of those, but the clients love all those "putting on deoderant" shots, but I would never share them here.

I also worry that the photos I show don't make sense.  They make sense to me and the couple, as you say, but might not make sense to the random viewer.

Thank you so much Mike.  You gave me a ton of stuff to think about.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

Ok, Big Mike, I went to "Like" your post, but I can't do it.  Know that I "Like your post!"


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 12, 2011)

You can only 'Like' 3 times per day...or something like that.



> Should I just show the pretties, or should I show more of the entire story. I feel like I might be boring people sometimes by showing so many photos, but at the same time, I want to tell the FULL story, hoping it will make more sense.


I don't think it's necessary to show as many images as you usually do.  It's not that they get boring (to some they might, I guess) but it is a whole lot to look at...and maybe a lot of work for you to copy all those urls.  It might be easier to pose fewer images, but leave a link where people can view the rest, if they choose.

Also, when posting photos on a forum, it's sometimes for the purpose of getting feedback.  The more photos someone posts, the harder it is to give specific feedback.  With this many photos, you'll usually get a few comments on the photos (as a group), and any comments on specific images, are likely to get lost in the shuffle.  
Even if you're not really looking for feedback from the members, and posting photos as examples etc., for display purposes....it's easier to discuss them when there are fewer of them in a thread.

But with all that said....when talking with a perspective client (or maybe someone who is interested in wedding photography) there is certainly a lot of value in showing them all these images.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> You can only 'Like' 3 times per day...or something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That makes a lot of sense Big Mike.  And yes, it's a pain to copy over all those URLs.

I also agree about the feedback for individual images.

I'll try to figure out how to make different galleries for people on this forum, but will they get freaked out by a link?


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 12, 2011)

Some people don't want to click a link...especially if it's a new member.  But you've been around 

Also, it's one thing to just post a link and ask people to view your images...but if you actually post some of the images and give the link as "if you'd like to see more....", then I think people will be more inclined to click and visit the gallery.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 12, 2011)

Ok, I'll give that a spin.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Sep 12, 2011)

I am a huge fan of candid shots (I guess the correct term is photojournalism). I think they hold great meaning for those that know the person or the person themselves. For me, in this forum, they don't hold much interest other than to see them and think that along with your others that they are great.


----------



## Stanza (Sep 12, 2011)

bennielou, you are awesome!  I love your view of life and photography.


----------



## ghache (Oct 26, 2011)

you should probably lay down the blur tool in photoshop, bad skin smoothing is turning all your beautiful brides into plastic dolls and ruins your pictures.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 26, 2011)

ghache said:


> you should probably lay down the blur tool in photoshop, bad skin smoothing is turning all your beautiful brides into plastic dolls and ruins your pictures.


Pretty much 

A little is OK, but i feel like your skin retouching is too strong too pasty smooth. It prevents the pictures from looking genuine. Otherwise the compositions and lighting are excellent.


----------



## BlairWright (Oct 26, 2011)

I do both at every wedding and tend to sell more posed prints than photojournalism prints. Personally I like to shoot the event and think the posed shots are a bit fake, I rarely look at my own wedding shots that hang in my bedroom, the posed shots just don't capture much of the energy and memory IMO.


----------



## MissCream (Oct 26, 2011)

ghache said:


> you should probably lay down the blur tool in photoshop, bad skin smoothing is turning all your beautiful brides into plastic dolls and ruins your pictures.



I think it looks like the luminance slider in LR is too high. Lovely shots but that is bothering me.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 26, 2011)

To me it doesnt feel PJ when you smoothen the skin like that.


----------



## CCericola (Oct 26, 2011)

Why do Photographers showcase the posed shots? Because I think that's what sells the photographer to the average bride. The bride goes through stacks of bridal magazines and sees all these great artistic shots and that's what they think they want. So you advertize with those posed shots to get their attention. 

How you sell yourself after that is up to you. On the other hand. If you are strictly a  PJ wedding photographer then you should not advertise yourself with posed pictures because you won't get the clientele you want.


----------



## sierramister (Oct 26, 2011)

When the wedding is over, the detail shots will be stored in an album or left on the computer for the bride to browse once a year.  But I bet 9.9 times out of 10, if three shots of the wedding stay on the mantle or framed on the wall, it will be posed shots.


----------



## bennielou (Oct 26, 2011)

I agree.  I sell way more posed shots.  The albums though seem to have mostly candid stuff.  That's why I was thinking about this.  I was wondering if there was a trend going back to more formal photography because I've just been seeing sooooo much of it.

Anyhoo, dually noted that my skin stuff is a photographer no no.  So I decided to post a "before" photo:







LOL.  I'm just jacking with you guys.  That was my halloween costume a few years ago.  

Anyhoo great discussion.


----------



## CCericola (Oct 26, 2011)

I did a workshop with Joseph & Louise Simone and they only do posed shots at weddings. They don't do any candids. I then watched a webinar on a photographer (I forget his name) and all he does is PJ shots. No posed at all. I think there is a happy medium between the two for most wedding photographers. Actually I think specializing in Posed or just candids would make shooting a wedding MUCH easier.  may have to look into that.


----------



## bennielou (Oct 26, 2011)

I used to work for a guy who only did candids.  He is always booked solid.  But then again, his clients were always aware that it was the way he shot, so it wasn't a shocker.  I'd be afraid that the moms and dads would freak!

On the other hand, I know people that bring in big backdrops to the church and shoot studio style, then recreate a good portion of the wedding.  That seems like a lot of work to me!  I already drag enough stuff around....


----------

