Monday, August 18, 2008

Shooting from the Hip: Guerrilla Photo Training

I've always had a fondness and respect for wedding photography. Where else can you see all of the perfect and not so perfect moments when doe-eyed young couples cement their union forever, well forever? Although I enjoy seeing these little moments captured perfectly, I've generally felt that shooting weddings is like having children: it's better when someone else does it and you get to appreciate it all from afar.

That said, being a recent graduate from photography school, if an opportunity comes my way where I actually get to shoot and pay some bills, I am most definitely excited. I have had the good fortune of being referred through a friend to an established wedding photographer as an assistant/third shooter. Yes. I said third. At first I thought, even for Celine Dion, isn't three a bit excessive for a wedding? That is, until I actually helped shoot the first gig about a month ago. Unless your photographer has the fantastic ability to travel at the speed of light, I'm not sure how wedding photographers do it. By it, I mean, how are they everywhere at once? How can you focus on the bride and groom while still capturing the candid moments of your guests? How do you do this when the bride and groom are supposed to be shot at one location across town from where cocktails are beginning simultaneously for the guests? And voila. Second and third shooters. It's brilliant. I don't know how people did it before. My many hats off (and I have quite a collection) to wedding photographers the world over.

Aside from logistics, the wedding market is changing. All of the weddings I'd been to from the 90s until recently have been covered by generally, one photographer and his or her assistant. In the past year or so, I've noticed that many photographers are offering second shooters as part of their wedding packages. On the one hand, you wonder how if you're going through all of the trouble to select one photographer based on his/her style, you can then just trust the person they select to be a second shooter. Can you really trust a person you probably have never met with your big day? The day? Once I started shooting these weddings, I realized, you have to trust your photographer. The lead photographer has a vision and will most likely take charge of how the images (portraits of the couple and bridal party being shot by the lead photographer) taken by his or her team should be shot. A creative directive, if you will.

Let me reiterate, I never, ever thought wedding photography was easy, but I had no idea how really difficult it is/can be until more recently. I came home after my first shoot dead on my feet. Or more accurately on my bum in the car. During the wedding, I felt fine. On the 45 minute drive home, the wear and tear of the shoot set in and by the time I pulled into my garage, I could barely open the door. I just sat there for a bit wondering, "how do they do it??" As in, how do you do it three days a week every week during high season? Aside from the physical exhaustion, it's the constant light and color temperature changes. And if you're lucky, you get to do it at not just 2 but 3-4 locations throughout the day of the shoot. You start in the home or hotel room....hotel lobby, ceremony, reception, indoor, outdoor, daytime, evening, tungsten, mixed....pft. It's mentally exhausting as well.

In theory, I understood what it took to shoot a wedding. I thought it had something to do with the sentimentality of wanting to capture "special" "romantic" moments. And I am not saying these words with irony. But I realized it takes so much more to stay in the business and not only be competent, but do it really well. How do you continue to shoot and keep it fresh? But that's another post completely. What I wanted to say is that if you have the opportunity to assist at weddings; especially if you have the opportunity to shoot weddings as an emerging photographer: take it. It is guerrilla photo training. You have to be quick and you have to be really good at thinking on your feet/shooting from the hip. If you can handle shooting weddings and do it well, moving into shoots where you can better control the circumstances is a breath of fresh air. Then again, maybe part of being a wedding photographer is taking joy in the unexpected. Maybe, after you've done it long enough, walking in and out of different uncontrollable situations becomes as second nature as focusing a lens. You just become a well-oiled machine.

6 comments:

Unknown said...

Thanks for writing this. I'm just venturing out into the world of searching for a photographer for my own wedding and your inside view of it has enlightened me as to what it is exactly I'm going to ask this professional to do.

upstartup said...

Hey Katherine, Thanks for reading the post. I'm glad it's helped you in some way. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sonya Yruel said...

I love the "doe-eyed young couples cement their union forever." Thanks for the laughs and the good insight to the crazy world of wedding photography; you're a great observer and writer.

Rob Prideaux said...

I think your last paragraph sums it up for any area of professional photography. Like there are these stages:

1. for fun
2. for serious
3. well
4. for money
5. for money consistently
6. well and for money consistently
7. well and for money consistently and for a long time
8. for fun

Injector said...

I've been a follower of Jeremy for years. He's mentioned a few times that you were a photographer. I wanted to ask to see some of your work, but didn't want to seem creepy. I'm glad that he has linked to this blog.

I'm tempted to write and write and write, as I am generally a very verbose individual. But this is your blog, so I'll fight to keep it short.

I wanted to comment on your comment about the continual changing lighting conditions. I'll agree about having to compensate for light levels (I'm not telling you anything there. Judging from your portfolio; you have no problem capturing a great dynamic range). I assume you shoot raw. If so, there is no reason to worry about color temperature. The data recorded into the raw file is exactly the same no matter what color temp you've set in the camera. It may look different on the camera's screen and when you first open the raw image in your processing software. That is only due to the tag assigned to the data. So whether you have the camera set for 2700 K, 9600 K or Auto, the pixel data in the file will be identical, only the "hint" as to how to interpret those values varies. So that is something you can completely put off until post, and losslessly adjust.

...and is why I'll never be a great photographer. I care more about learning the technical gadgets and the details of file formats than I put into actually practicing the craft.

upstartup said...

Hey there, Thanks for checking out the blog. In general, I do shoot raw, however, for certain wedding assisting jobs, if you are a second shooter you may be asked to shoot large/fine jpg. Also, the lead photographer probably wants you to shoot and dump the images right away leaving no time for post processing. In general, this is fine since the photographer will probably have their lab process color corrections, but being a perfectionist, I like my images to be as close to finished as possible in camera. I think too many newer photographers rely on post production to correct issues that should be shot correctly in the first place.

In terms of your interest in photo gadgets, I definitely share your love of the technical. If you don't understand how to shoot something from a technical perspective correctly, the rest of it doesn't matter.