When shooting a wedding, I have always preferred to work on my own. Occasionally I will use an assistant if the logistics of the wedding demand it, but I have never had a desire to work with another photographer, even though it is very common to see at least two photographers at a wedding.
A couple of years ago, a good friend of mine came over to the UK to visit, and he ended up attending a wedding with me as a 'second shooter'. My client was in the enviable position of having two great photographers at her wedding. However, on the wedding day itself I noticed that the people at the wedding were behaving differently to how I would normally expect them to behave. The presence of two photographers was having a real impact on them; some guests became suspicious of the camera, and others started to play up to the camera. This was something that I had never encountered before. I personally felt really uncomfortable, and for most of the day I was sure that if I had worn a fluorescent yellow jacket with 'PHOTOGRAPHER' written on the back, I would have been more inconspicuous. During a break, one of the guests came up to us and said "It was like having the paparazzi buzzing around you". That day just reinforced my belief that I was doing the right thing by shooting weddings on my own. The pictures from the day were fantastic, but I felt that I had worked harder to get them and had intruded far too much into the wedding day.
I still scratch my head as to why many photographers hunt in pairs at a wedding. Maybe it is a confidence thing? Perhaps it is a way of adding perceived value to a package? I don't really know, but it is definitely not for me. It's simply too intrusive.
.......................................
When digital capture hit the photography world some five or six years ago, photographers suddenly found they could shoot many images without cost, and the phrase 'machine gunning' was coined by the industry. The term relates to the photographer that turns up to a wedding and shoots many hundreds of images of anything and everything in the hope of getting some good shots, in much the same way as a machine gunner sprays bullets at a target in the hope of occasionally hitting it. If there are two photographers 'machine gunning' then the number of images taken would run into several thousand!!
Is this a good thing? I'm not so sure. Initially it may look like a good thing - many would think that huge quantities of pictures has to be good for the client in terms of value for money, but what about the quality of those images? Perhaps less is more?
Those of us that are experienced enough to remember shooting weddings with medium format cameras and film, often raise an eyebrow at the sheer quantity of images now being produced. For the first fifteen years of my career, the cost of processing and printing film was extremely high and I simply couldn't afford to shoot lots of pictures. Like many others, I developed the habit of making every shot count. I had to, otherwise I would have gone out of business!! When I moved to 35mm in 1994, the mechanics of shooting became easier and the temptation to take more and more pictures grew, but so did the cost factor. On a typical wedding I couldn't afford to shoot more than five rolls of 35mm film, which is 180 images in total, and over the following years I learned to tell the story of a wedding with a limited number of pictures. I still do this today even though I could shoot thousands of images if I so desired.
My whole style and approach is based around the 'less is more' idea. For years I've worked on the principle of getting one exceptional image to tell the story of a particular moment, rather than lots of average pictures. If you cover a wedding with this mindset, not only does the photography improve, but so does the consistency of the coverage. I pride myself on the fact that all the pictures that I take on the wedding day are of a consistently high standard. The 'machine gunner' methodology would produce hundreds of average images and a few good ones, as the image taking process is largely left to chance.
Having the skill to get that one shot is obviously something that you either have or don't have, but it's often the mindset of the photographer that makes the difference. I like to see an image, compose it, and then wait for the moment to happen. Anticipation and a vast amount of experience are an advantage here. My work often shows a sense of environment; it involves foreground and background interest, and it has good composition and lighting. These are all elements that you have to think about when shooting, and you simply can't do this when you permanently have a camera to your eye 'machine gunning' a wedding.
I often ask the delegates at my workshops and seminars "How many images do you show your clients?" I get figures ranging from 400-1000 images. Newer photographers that have never used a film camera, often mention figures of 1000-2000. At this point I like to show a complete wedding of mine with around 150-180 images. After the presentation, I always ask the same question "What was missing from that coverage?". The answer is always the same. "Nothing". That's because the story of the day is told in the quality of the images, and not the quantity. Quality images demand to be looked at and are more interesting to the viewer, so the viewer loses track of how many images have been seen. A good image will absorb the viewer, and evoke an emotional response, and that is what I am always after.
As I write this, I have just received an email from a client who has just seen her images online. There are 186 images covering 10 hours of photography from the bride getting ready, through to the dancing in the evening. That's less than 20 images per hour of coverage.
"The photos are incredible. We are both absolutely delighted with them. Thank you for capturing the day so perfectly." Samina Ahmed.
.......................................
I've covered equipment in a previous blog post, and here again, 'less is more'.
I'm a fan of taking the minimum amount of equipment with me when shooting. I have a small Billingham 'Alice' bag, a couple of camera bodies, and four prime lenses. That's pretty much it apart from the back up stuff that sits in my car. I pretty much shoot the whole wedding on 24mm and 50mm lenses, and over the years I've found that the more equipment you take with you, the more confused you become. By limiting the choices, decisions are made faster, and the whole picture taking process is more responsive. If you favour a particular lens, it's very easy to become used to that lens' characteristics and the operating distance required to use that lens effectively. I can pretty much frame an image without even bringing the camera up to my eye, because I know what my 50mm lens will give me at any given moment. This familiarity with my lenses allows me to concentrate wholly on the image without paying much attention to the lens.
Here we have a 'less is more' image. Shot on a 24mm, the image tells the story of the bridesmaids arriving with Grandma waiting patiently. The light is good, the composition is great with the image being divided into thirds, and the moment is pretty much perfect. I couldn't have shot this image without pre-visualising the picture and waiting for something to happen. The 'machine gunner' would probably have taken 15-20 images of the bridesmaids and missed the overall image, and the second shooter would have been in the shot while taking snaps of Grandma :-)
In this second image, the environment is important as it sets the scene on the wedding morning. I saw the image of bride's mum ironing the bridesmaid's dress, but I waited until something else happened to make it more interesting. That interest was provided by the kid with the crisps. I just had to wait for all those elements to come together and then press the shutter. Again, I couldn't have got this image while taking hundreds of pictures, that's not how my mind works.
