Photo Journalistic Wedding Photography
Constantly another photographer invents a new term to describe their photography style and they are always different at some level.
Names like : Modern, Classical, Fresh, Contemporary, Romantic, Photo-journalistic, Lifestyle, Documentary, Emotional, Fashionable, Eclectic, Reportage, Dramatic, Environmental, Magazine-Style, Artistic, Story-Telling, or some made-up word, etc. With so many undefined terms it just creates confusion in the marketplace. Ask any of today’s wedding photographers if they do photojournalism photography and they will say yes because it is the popular thing to say, but what they classify as photo-journalistic may not be what you mean.
What is Photojournalism applied to Wedding Photography?
Photojournalism is defined as telling a story with photos. In wedding photography today photojournalism has come to be known as documentary photos of wedding-day events as they happened. (With no involvement, direction or control from the photographer). The photographer captures a moment as it happened without orchestrating it. Identified as being more raw, realistic and factual, stemming from newspaper photography same as if he witnessed the entire process and captured that picture that represents thousand words.
Unadulterated photojournalism is often marked by the photographer having no influence nor any manipulation of the event but only documenting what was naturally occurring without any input (Cut to me saying: newspaper photographer on assignment)… Much more challenging than the guided process because sometimes the interesting things never get to happen.
Advantages: natural looking photographs, low stress, real memories of real moments instead of contrived ones, the photography happens around your event timetable rather than as an interruption of it. Disadvantages: unpredictability, you won’t know beforehand what your favorite photo will be or even what will be taken, you may not ‘look your best’ in every photo as honest photojournalism isn’t always pretty.
Posed is not photojournalism.
Today many traditional photographers are taking black and white photos of formally posed or set-up groups and claiming them to be photojournalism. (Cut to me saying: FAKE- Faux journalism) You only need to look at wedding-day photographs and ask is this a picture of what the photographer made happen or is it what was really happening. Does it look natural or contrived, real or fake?
Will the best memory of your wedding day be relived by the photos that you were forced to fake? Or will they be the genuine loving look, laugh, tear or hug captured as a fleeting moment in time. I think you will find over time that the realistic and natural photo journalistic photographs will be your favorite.
Casual Candid Photography Years ago when a ‘traditional’ photographer would take non-setup photos during the reception he would call these ‘candid’s’ they aren’t really posed or formal, but are usually casual pictures with some type of photographers influence (look here and say cheese) and would be considered more photo-realistic rather than photo-journalistic. The ‘look here and say cheese’ type photos are fine if you want the photographer to continually be an interruption of what is going on.