Colin_D wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Colin_D wrote:
The moral is, if you can't control the photographic
situation, then it will control you. All you will get
are snapshots.
The "journalism style" of wedding photography may not
work for you, but it 1) lets the situation control the
photography, and 2) does not produce snapshots.

I'm probably regarded by the younger set as

You might just be regarded by many of us old foggies as
a bit out of touch with reality... ;-)

old-fashioned now, but IMO the traditional photographic
standards are still desirable, even if nobody today
recognizes it as such.

I see nothing wrong with traditional standards, and I
don't believe they are not typically recognized.

I don't think what you stated above fit that description
though...

Yes, the journalism style is used a lot, but I have had
younger people look at some of the more traditional
wedding shots, and they've said something along the
lines of 'I rather wish we had some nice shots like
those'.

They should hire a photographer with demonstrated
capability to produce what they want and provide a very
specific job description to let the photographer know
exactly what that is.

I just don't see the problem...

My personal opinion is - and YMMV - that the journo
style is more a result of using 35mm film cameras, no
available studio, everything either outdoors or flash,

Yeah, folks have been doing that for what, over half a
century now! That is an *old* tradition now...

and - dare I say it - ignorance or downright disdain for
the more timeless, classic style.

I don't agree. How many weddings are held in
photography studios? Why should studio techniques be
the style of choice for a situation that does not match?

That isn't disdain; but, you might just be a little
stubborn, eh? :-)

My grandson got married last year, the pro photog and
his wife were shooting two Dynax film cameras. I had
the job of scanning the negs for my GS to store on his
computer, all nine 36exp films. The photog sold them
the negs for a price, dunno how much.

Most of the shots were pure kitsch, complete crap IMO.
The groom and groomsmen acting out various scenarios,
like one on a cellphone, another two looking at their
watches, the groom scratching his head etc., clearly
meant to be a jibe at the bride being late. Another
with the men running away from the women, having stolen
their posies. Supposed to be funny. Stopped being funny
by the next day. Memorable shots, not many of those.

Did *you* hire the photographer? Did the people who did
the hiring approve of the results, and did they review
the photographer's style before hand?

Regardless, that is *not* a representation of the
journalist style of wedding photography. It sounds more
like an ill thought out studio approach, what with posed
pictures.

When they are looked back on years hence, I think there
will be disappointment. I finished up taking a few
properly posed shots at the reception, cutting the cake
etc. Guess which ones they had blown up and framed.

So just who hired the photographer, and why?

Even at 73, I still get the urge to do a few weddings,
but not 'journo style'.

So?

I doubt that you are in any way definitive of what is
correct photography, or even traditional, whether
wedding or studio or otherwise.

Incidentally, I have family members who do studio
photography and others who do weddings in the journalist
style. We all enjoy comparing notes, and laughing at
how things that are so comfortable for one person makes
another totally off kilter at the very thought of it.

We don't claim that makes anyone wrong though...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)