I know I am probably using this forum incorrectly... I am using it to post image that are kinda out there, and looking for affirmation of whether they will work or not..... I hope that is okay, as I trust the opinions of the people who frequent the site.
The B&G wanted very photojournalistic images
On that note - what do you think of the attached image? Is the merger too much, or does it work? or not..... or yes.....
just looking for an opinion.... or several opinions, or someone to be honest...lol.
this one is great. no one even knows you're there. that is good. lol.
your BW conversion is beautiful.
would you mind posting more of the wedding and we could assess your PJ approach more fully?
your second image is a typical result for most weddings.
that is not bad, it's just still not enough to know if you "successfully" accomplished your PJ goal.
most clients when they say "photo-journalism" , they just want creative and that "candid" look. most don't fully understand what that means or how it differs from one photog to another.
here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you determine whether you were on the right path to PJ.
did you use only available light?
did you follow people through the day?
did you prompt people to look, smile, act, etc?
are you telling the story of the day, conversations between people, etc.?
most naturally, so much of a wedding day is photojournalism.
things happen by surprise. you're catching all the details.
i wouldn't stress about it too badly. but if you are still concerned, of course feel free to post more images throughout from the day.
Not to rain on your parade but I'm still waiting to see the images that are "kinda out there." Those are nice images, but not particularly different or unusual. Guess I'm missing the entire "out there" thing.
You seem to be inferring that somehow film capture is/was superior to digital capture. Or that if one never developed their own film they're somehow a lessor photographer. (Before you start, I'm 53 and have had a camera in my hands about as long as I can remember).
You mention your clients wanting "very photojournalistic images." In your mind does that mean they have to be black & white? Be heavily vignetted? Photojournalism, the real kind not necessarily the "wedding variety," isn't so hung up on rules about using natural light, black & white capture, etc. It's about telling a story with pictures and doesn't restrict which tools are and are not used. Photo editors don't ask what kind of camera was used, which lens or what kind of film/media the image was captured with. They don't toss away a solid, useable image that clearly tells a story because the photographer used flash. Some of the "rules of photojournalism" spouted by some of the self proclaimed wedding photojournalists almost makes me gag sometimes. Some of them have credibility to stand on... have worked for newspapers/magazines or been published as freelancers. Unfortunately many just seem to pontificate about the "gospel" they've read in online forums.
You'll excuse me but I'm just trying to figure out what makes your photo of the dance "PJ" and the next guy's not? How your capture of the recessional is somehow more photojournalistic than anyone else's? What you really think is "out there" about either of those images? I think your posts have a bit of a condenscending tone to them and I don't see where that's really necessary.
