Photographers v Directors

I love movies. I’m the guy who watches the extra stuff on the BluRay special editions and buys the ‘extended cut’ just because it’s got 20 more mins of the film on it. But it’s also where I obtain ideas, motivation and find inspiration.

Looking at stuff by other photographers leaves me a little cold. That’s not to say there aren’t hundreds of them out there who are worth looking at, of course there are, but personally I love the way movie directors approach things. The ‘storyboarding’ of ideas before shooting, the re-working of a story thread based on a different edit and fashion in which they really embrace the use digital imaging (CGI) to enhance a narrative.

A good example of a guy’s work which is a rich source of ideas for a photographer is Joe Wright. With Pride & Prejudice, Atonement and The Soloist he has created visually stunning films which flow gently but are full of great ideas. Knowing when to cut away from a scene so as not to linger combined with the mixture of focal lengths to illustrate a story are notable techniques right there on the screen to be absorbed by a photographer. I also think great films can be paused in many areas and display what are basically very impressive stills, just watch the opening ten minutes from Goodnight and Good Luck. Another telling thing for me when watching a film is the format. The widescreen nature of the finished product looks amazing and sweeping feel enhances the frame. I would dearly love to shoot through the lens with that letterbox vision at something like a wedding, there would be so many new shots.

Another parallel for directors and photographers is just how far do you go with the digital side of any project. I see so many photographers in the wedding industry who totally over use digital post-production effects to try and boost their results. There’s a real temptation to go too far with filters, actions and the dizzying array of quick fixes in something like Photoshop. For me, and it’s simply my take on this, the best use of digital imaging is to enhance a shot without going to the extent that it’s obvious something major has been done. Of course there are commissions where the whole point is to create something outlandish and different, but in most areas of photography the digital tools should help achieve a result, not actually be the result. In a movie sense some films which illustrate this point are the original Star Wars episodes. I grew up loving the first 3 films when special effects were in their infancy. They were character-led with a few whizzes and bangs thrown in but in the most part shot in real locations and on real sets. Contrast that with the more recent 3 films which completed the series, and the CGI was so advanced that the actors and storylines were totally swamped under the weight of really quite iffy vistas and environments.

I recently watched Zodiac again, one of my favourite films by David Fincher, and was amazed to learn of the sheer quantity of CGI effects in the movie. In nearly every case you simple don’t see them, a seamless integration which is such a skill. Completely in the other direction is the forthcoming Tron Legacy, which looks aesthetically amazing and could only be told using very, very advanced CGI. It remains to be seen if the characters are noticed at all amid all the neon and visual effects, but it looks like it will be fun finding out.

So I’m looking forward to sitting in the theatre again soon, wondering if this or that might work on an upcoming job. The approach won’t work for everybody and I’m sure many don’t agree at all, but that’s the point with photography anyway, there’s no right or wrong – just interpretation.

First impressions

Whether we acknowledge them or not, first impressions count. Clothes, food, places, people, whatever – it’s that immediate thought which stays with us and is very hard to change. Photography is no different, people know what they like, and a glance at a picture creates an instant yes or no inside the brain. It’s because you only get one crack at forming this opinion that editing is so important towards the presentation of your work. I have always tried to treat a selection of pictures as something many people are going to automatically criticize, my objective being to provide as few reasons to do so as possible. I also try and make things easy. People are commissioning me to provide a service, I’m there to solve problems and not create a couple of new ones.

A couple who are waiting to view their wedding photography don’t want to see 900 unedited shots from which to choose a set number for prints or a book. It bores them, whether they admit it or not. I can think of countless tales of families who waited months to make their selection because they literally couldn’t face going through a DVD full of images which displayed massive content repetition. Promising hundreds of pictures is a tactic some photographers use during initial meetings to convince a prospective client their high price is justified. But there’s only so much material you can obtain from a wedding day, it’s impossible to obtain several hundred without introducing significant padding to bloat the final tally. Portfolios are all well and good, they give a quick insight into a style, but seeing a few full wedding day selections is really the only way to accurately predict what you’ll receive from a photographer. If the quality of material displayed in a cherry-picked portfolio is frequently evident throughout a full wedding shoot, then people will take notice.

My editing process starts as soon as possible after the wedding itself. It helps me to almost seamlessly flow into working on the selection because the feel and atmosphere of the event is still in my head. The photographs are stored chronologically on our server in the office and immediately backed up onto several DVDs, just in case something happens to a hard drive. For a couple of days I’ll play around with colour balance, skin tones, black and white conversions and sometimes order changes. This is because sometimes you shoot things out of natural order depending on available time. A good example would be arriving at a venue where the ceremony and reception are to take place. If you’re there before anybody else, and you’ve got 10 mins to kill, then shooting dining room detail is another thing off the list which also frees up time later in the day. So while the detail content might have been shot at 11am, you’ll want those pictures to appear in your final selection around the time the guests seat for the wedding breakfast, so they are nudged forward a few hours. All these tweaks take time.

Upon completion of the selection, typically 150-200 different images, the files are uploaded to a dedicated web server. The access address and pass codes can be agreed beforehand so viewing is possible on honeymoon (if applicable). Having the previews on-line isn’t much of a step forward for the couple themselves, because there’s always been the facility of seeing contact sheets or a softback proof book. Where the web really comes into it’s own is the mass availability to family, friends and work colleagues. A lot of the people who can nowadays pore over the thumbnails probably never saw the whole selection before, and from a business perspective it’s great exposure for the photographer, not to mention priceless word of mouth, still the most solid form of publicity.

Hopefully the first and lasting impression given is an easy to navigate, high quality set of shots which captures the atmosphere of the day. It’s the culmination of a lot of thought, a few stressful moments and loads of clever pieces of kit supplied by Canon and Apple!!