Over the years the style of photography known as "REPORTAGE" has become more and more misused. When I started out "REPORTAGE" was a distinct style and art form of wedding photography. Those shooting REPORTAGE were exponents of light and composition using these skills to cover weddings with a primarily documentary approach. Most still covered the bride and groom shots and of course knew how to photograph the groups.
However the thing that differentiated them from the main stream photographers was the fact that they didn't ruin/dominate most of the wedding by taking hours over the pictures.
As I said most of these almost revolutionary REPORTAGE wedding photographers were skilled in the use of light, composition and storytelling within a an image or a set of images; they can even be an unposed "portrait" like this one below.
These days the term "REPORTAGE" has been hijacked by magazines, wedding websites and photographers alike and it seems that almost every man and his dog, regardless of their true style are shooting "REPORTAGE". Many are still shooting traditional images and using this buzz word, others really do shoot in a true, skilled documentary style but, in the main, most REPORTAGE photographers are little more than machine-gunners. Its become another bandwagon to jump on.
The advent of digital SLRs has made wedding photography so much more accessible than ever before; in the past having to load and shoot with a medium format camera and produce enough saleable images on just 6 rolls of 12 was a dark art that required real skill and know-how.
Now I can't ever see me wanting to go back to the good old days of Bronicas and Hassleblads; I love my digital SLRs (especially my D3s), but the introduction of these affordable amazing cameras has certainly lowered the standards when it comes to wedding photography.
In the past, it was expensive to shoot 1000s of images in the hope of getting 50 good ones. These days, once the gear has been purchased, its easy to machine-gun away and, fingers crossed, there will be enough to show the couple. A few days in front of Photoshop making them all black and white can save the day, but this really is an unprofessional attitude.
REPORTAGE has become the label for this "natural" style; when its done well, the results are amazing but it seems to me that, in the main, most think of this style as the easy option. They become lazy, sloppy even, giving little or no thought to lighting and flattering their subjects.
In my opinion, just because an image is unposed or natural, doesn't mean we shouldn't think about how good or bad it makes our subjects look.
REPORTAGE images don't have to be black and white!
As a result of the miss use of the term, REPORTAGE has become a label for cheap and cheerful wedding photography, which is a shame as it can cause confusion for our clients. Personally I prefer to avoid labels to describe my style. I just refer to myself as a "wedding photographer".
(These images were taken over the last couple of years by the way)
Peter,
ReplyDeleteWell said, and illustrated! Thanks!
Paul
A well written article Peter with strong images to back it up. I was taught reportage along the way and we were always told it was harder to do well than traditional photography. There are a lot of photographers out there that just don't get it.
ReplyDelete