The famous Robert Capa quotation "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough" is so apt when it comes to people photography, and yet wedding photographers seem to have a fascination with long telephoto lenses.
One of the most used lenses for wedding photography is the big 70-200 f2.8. Personally, I've never seen why so many photographers have a fascination for using this lens, and I am continually puzzled as to its popularity. It's big, heavy, and (in the Canon flavour) bright white. If you ever want to be noticed at a wedding, get the 'Great White' out and see how people react!!
The first time that I was made aware of how this lens can effect people, was at a celebrity wedding which I covered some six years ago. My clients and their guests were used to intrusion from photographers as part of their daily lives, and yet I had no problem shooting in close with 28mm and 50mm lenses on a couple of Leica rangefinders. Moving in and around the guests, I was able to take pictures without getting a second glance from them. However, at the reception I had to get the 70-200 out to cover the speeches, and from that moment on everyone noticed me. It was really bizarre. It was like I'd lit a torch and was holding it above my head. After the wedding I wondered if it was me or the lens that had caused this reaction, or was it simply the lens forcing me to behave differently?
At first I thought it was the lens, as it is large and obtrusive and immediately shouts 'PHOTOGRAPHER!' to everyone. In hindsight I think it had more to do with the focal length. I'll hold my hands up now and confess that I'm simply not a fan of long telephoto lenses for weddings. I do like them for landscapes, when I want to compress the perspective, but not for taking photographs of people. When using a telephoto I often feel detached from what is happening in front of me. I also feel far more conspicuous. I'll try to explain.
As human beings, our faces are one of the most important things for communication. We are often more comfortable around people when we can see their faces. It gives us a sense of how we are feeling, and non-verbal communication is easier. As a people photographer, I believe that working closer to a subject is more comfortable for them. They can see my face, get a sense for how I'm feeling, and get used to me being there. They can then carry on with what they are doing knowing that I'm just part of the environment.
From a creative point of view, working closer allows me to see and hear things, and study body language. This helps me to anticipate what is going to happen, and I can get better images as a result. I usually find myself close enough to be able to interact and talk to someone without raising my voice, but far enough away so as not to invade their personal space.
However, there are two things which are very important to remember. As I mentioned in a previous post I don't take lots of pictures, so my clients never feel as though their every move is being scrutinised by my camera. This can be at best uncomfortable, and at worst down right irritating! The second thing is that whenever they look at me, the chances are there won't be a camera pointing back at them. They can see my face rather than the business end of a 50mm lens. I have lost count of the amount of compliments that I have had from clients who just hadn't noticed I was there. Being unobtrusive is largely about behaviour, rather than dressing in black and trying to blend into the shadows.
What people do find uncomfortable, is the idea that they are being 'spied on'. Standing away from a group of people at a drinks reception, and pointing a large telephoto at them is far more suspicious in terms of behaviour, than being in and around them taking pictures. Guests can't see the photographer's face, and non-verbal communication is missing. This can lead to a degree of discomfort and a change in behaviour patterns, which I believe leads to poorer pictures. During the odd occasion that I have found myself in a situation like this (such as the celebrity wedding), I have felt really intrusive and convinced that people were noticing me.
One of my biggest photographic influences was the late, great street photographer Garry Winogrand. He would walk the streets with a 28mm wide angle lens and just take pictures. To see him work is quite remarkable. He shot very quickly. Just a camera up to his eye, a shutter press, and a smile. That was it. Even though he would often stand right in front of complete strangers, most didn't pay him any attention. Now imagine how all of those people would have reacted if he was shooting with a huge white telephoto lens, pointing it at them from a long way away. I would wager that he would never have got a quarter of his images, as people would have been naturally suspicious. The images would have certainly lacked the intimacy that he achieved.
Here is some rare footage (with German narration) of the great man in action.
Another influence of mine, Eugene Richards, is best known for working with a 21mm wide angle lens. He often shot very close to his subjects, and his images are arguably some of the most thought provoking of any modern day photojournalist. In the first part of this interview posted on You Tube, Eugene talks about his wide angle use. What is really interesting is how he feels about himself and why he chooses to work close to his subjects.
The other major issue I've had with telephoto lenses has always been one of perspective. A telephoto forces the photographer to constantly peer through it, as it is impossible to judge what the lens will see. The picture taking process is now determined by what the lens sees, rather than what the photographer sees. Our vision doesn't work with the same perspective as a telephoto, so we can't relate to how that lens will view a subject until we look through it. Compression of the perspective is one major problem with background elements appearing larger than they do with normal human vision.
If you use standard or slightly wider lenses, the field of view of the lens is quite similar to human vision and this makes a difference. With experience it becomes second nature to see pictures without having to put a camera to your eye. The photographer is now in control of the picture.
There is always an exception to every rule though, and in the case of the 70-200, my friend Joe Buissink is one of the world's best exponents of this lens. Some of the images he has taken are simply amazing. He manages to retain the storytelling aspects of wedding photography, but uses the longer perspective to heighten emotion and mood within the photograph. He often works closer than I do, and involves himself much more in the actual wedding, so obviously the lens isn't a hindrance to him - in fact it is an asset. I first came across his work when we were both involved in the 'Masters of Wedding Photography' documentary back in 2004. However, photographers like Joe are few and far between in this industry, and many photographers with this lens are happy to shoot aimless, tightly cropped head and shoulders images of people at the wedding. Often there isn't any storytelling within the image, with no sense of environment or space.
Just to tie up these last two posts. A couple of years ago, a delegate came up to me after one of my seminars and said, "Wow, there is more to being a wedding photographer than just taking pictures." You know what? He is dead right ;-)
