Comments on: standing out / blending in http://oneperfectmoment.com/blog/2008/04/09/standing-out-blending-in/ Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:29:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: neil http://oneperfectmoment.com/blog/2008/04/09/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-14542 neil Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:34:51 +0000 http://oneperfectmoment.com/blog/?p=174#comment-14542 Ed, Thank you for the thoughtful reply. That in itself is a great compliment, coming from someone with your abilities in writing and photography. Neil vN. Ed,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. That in itself is a great compliment, coming from someone with your abilities in writing and photography.

Neil vN.

]]> By: Ed Verosky http://oneperfectmoment.com/blog/2008/04/09/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-14502 Ed Verosky Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:42:15 +0000 http://oneperfectmoment.com/blog/?p=174#comment-14502 Neil, well said. I tend to be blunt with my personal opinions, so I'll say this: Pure photojournalism doesn't exist in wedding photography. It's a marketing ploy and often an excuse for photographers who aren't comfortable interacting, directing, and who need a reason for why they didn't get a particular shot, or didn't get it right. Candid shots can most certainly happen. Unplanned moments can be captured. But, the idea that a hired photographer can covertly cover an entire wedding properly without being noticed is silly. What is really the point of that anyway? To more accurately capture a ceremony and celebration? To get those tender quiet moments without interfering with the "reality" of the day? I agree with your methodology. If you have become a part of the day, THEN your presence is more natural and unobtrusive. The photographer can be a solid fixture and friend. This makes it even more possible to accept him in his role, forget he is there at times, and respond to him when appropriate. Imagine the lucky bride who's photographer can casually walk up to her during a free moment, and say, "I found a great spot where we can take a really great picture, would you like to try it?" Much better than the idea of huddling off to the edge of the action all day long with a telephoto. Or being invisible enough for the bride to come looking for you. Neil, well said. I tend to be blunt with my personal opinions, so I’ll say this: Pure photojournalism doesn’t exist in wedding photography.

It’s a marketing ploy and often an excuse for photographers who aren’t comfortable interacting, directing, and who need a reason for why they didn’t get a particular shot, or didn’t get it right.

Candid shots can most certainly happen. Unplanned moments can be captured. But, the idea that a hired photographer can covertly cover an entire wedding properly without being noticed is silly. What is really the point of that anyway? To more accurately capture a ceremony and celebration? To get those tender quiet moments without interfering with the “reality” of the day?

I agree with your methodology. If you have become a part of the day, THEN your presence is more natural and unobtrusive. The photographer can be a solid fixture and friend. This makes it even more possible to accept him in his role, forget he is there at times, and respond to him when appropriate.

Imagine the lucky bride who’s photographer can casually walk up to her during a free moment, and say, “I found a great spot where we can take a really great picture, would you like to try it?”

Much better than the idea of huddling off to the edge of the action all day long with a telephoto. Or being invisible enough for the bride to come looking for you.

]]>