Ideally, that's what "journalistic" wedding photography should be.

The problem is that not all wedding clients understand what
photojournalism is, and they might be surprised if they actually get
what they asked for.

That's how I interpret it; but I'm not sure that clients understand it
that way.

When someone asks me to shoot a wedding (which I will only do in the
"photojournalistic" style), I emphasize again and again the relatively
random nature of journalistic photography, and I emphasize that there is
no guarantee that any specific picture will be taken.  Clients must
understand that you can pose photos or you can take photos in a
journalistic style, but you can't do both at the same time, as they are
mutually exclusive.

It's a gray area and potentially dangerous territory.  People will ask
for photojournalism in weddings and then may complain when they don't
get the formal, posed shots they expect for a wedding.  I'll shoot
weddings in photojournalistic style if I'm absolutely convinced that the
client knows exactly what she will be getting, but it takes a lot of
discussion and verification to make sure that there are no
misunderstandings.

It is conceivable, by the way, that a wedding might be photographed both
ways, by two different photographers.  Since they are two different
styles, there's not much overlap between the two, and it might be nice
to have both.

       "Photojournalism", when used with wedding photography, has a lot of
different definitions. It's important to find out what it is the client
wants, rather than attempt to define for them what it was they asked for.
So basically, forget what it means in other circumstances ;-)

       In most cases, PJ means avoiding the stale and over-posed shots in
front of the altar, everyone lined up and forcing a smile - many people are
tired of seeing (and doing) this and recognize it's more discomfort than
happiness. But usually, it doesn't mean you can't pose or stage the shot,
but instead, simply that it doesn't *look* staged. The images should have
the look that you captured a candid moment, but you don't have to torture
yourself trying to be in position for a particular fraction of a second.

       Also, the point of the 'real' photojournalism was telling a story
(and there's not all that much 'real' PJ work being done nowadays either).
Thus, a PJ wedding package might feature the bride sprawled on a chair at
the edge of the reception hall, looking tired but pleased. Or alternately,
exiting the limo at the start of the reception, train gathered over one
arm. In the real world, at this point she's probably fumbling with her
shoes and the light's right behind her, so staying with strictly candids
could be a bad idea.

       Most clients would probably expect a low-key approach from the
photographer, though - remember the photos are illustrating the ceremony
and events, and not supposed to be an integral part. Too many photographers
start playing Hollywood director, and anyone looking for 'PJ' probably
isn't going to want this. So staging, when done, should be quick and
painless.

       And yes, definitely some candids. Making a full package of them is
damn hard, and quite a few clients won't be pleased with a package that
shows how unlively their guests really are, but being able to hit those key
moments from a good vantage point is a necessity. Expect to waste more film
than normal (and price accordingly), and be rigged to shoot from the hip.
Make sure your exposures take in the room to at least a small extent and
your flash should be somewhere between fill and main. Nuclear blasts in a
dark room don't look "candid".

       I suspect most clients equate PJ with black & white, as well, despite
the fact that there isn't any particular correlation. Considering your
background this is probably useless advice, but make sure you know how to
shoot monochrome. A ridiculous number of wedding photographers don't
realize that shooting B&W is more than loading a different film.

       Hope this helps. Good luck!

    - Al.

when I was a kid the average wedding album was 12 8x10s and that was
probably because the average photog could carry 12 plate holders in his
case.   And I'll bet those guys thought that was a lot of film and they
couldn't believe that brides were demanding that they drag that stuff down
to the church instead of having the couple and family come to the studio
like clients have been doing since they invented photography.

I was shooting a twin lens and the buzz was 'candid' photos which of course
was totally posed and corny as hell, but the shot count grew to about 100
'proofs' and the albums expanded to hold 5x7's and proofs mixed on pages
with the 8x10s.

As the years went by, the shot count grew to a couple hundred.

But here is one fact that really bugs me.  The more the client asks,
insists, demands more and more candid, documentarian, journalistic coverage
of the wedding, the more they order only the posed portraits and groups.
Its a schism I just can't explain, you try to say something on the wedding
boards, (yikes, don't even think of posting on alt.wedding) the you get
flamed as an insensitive jerk, I mean jeez, they want to burn you on your
tripod fueled by your prints and frames.

I've been selling my work ala carte for over 25 years, and have been
paperless proofing for most of that time, so I'm up close and personal with
the client's buying decisions.  I charge per image, plus what ever products
like albums etc.  So when they start selecting they are realizing that the
snapshot, really cool of the cousin dancing up a storm, dipping, the whole
works, that series is going to cost them $100.   what I pose they buy, I
shoot a couple rolls of the bride futzing with the makeup, gabbing with the
girls, hugging mom and sister, they choose the portrait of her and mom, if I
flow pose them, mom and bride look at camera, look at each other, hug and
kiss, they will probably buy 3 of the 4.    3 or 4 bridesmaids walking down
the aisle, one will blink or look really nervous, out, they buy the
portraits, they buy BM with Bride and they buy the BM solo.

The only candids that sell are the ones with blood in them, parents,
grandparents, sibs, kids.  cousins?  best friends?  neighbors?  co workers?
out out out.

Yes sure, they love the results, the story, the sequences, the cute shots of
friends having a ball at the reception, the hugs and kisses, the great
'look', the tender hand hold, yeah, they really love them, but they
don't       order      them.         I have a great shot, its lovely, it
fits, it tells a story, here, I'll put it in the book, cause *I* like it.
oh, OK....

That said, there is an amazing transition, the woman putting on her make up
and getting ready for the ceremony has ritualistic roots that must harken to
the deepest psychological instincts, genetic memories.   It just seems that
all cultures have remarkably similar rituals in most phases of the marriage
ceremony and the woman bathing and painting her face and then putting on
clothes that she has never worn before and will never wear again seems to
echo back to oldest cave.  Its as scripted in DNA as any mating dance of
Gitchygoony Swallows on some remote island.

And I tell ya, shooting journalistically is fun.  You just shoot away,
witness to a privileged private moment and a grand pageant, no hustling and
wrangling freaked out brides and dysfunctional family, you just shoot the
action (when its appropriately positive) and dash along for the ride.  Whee.

This reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing at yahoogroups.com

    They have no idea what they're asking for. It's something they've read
about and simply have no way of knowing what it is but know that "it's
supposed to be good". It's 90% marketing and 10% BS. The difference of
wedding photojournalists can be summed up as :

    Someone who shoots 1000~2000 frames of film on a wedding to capture about
100 acceptable images.

Every time I hear this term used, I have a awful urge to photograph a
wedding using a Speed Graphic with a big flash gun loaded with Press 25
flashbulbs while wearing a cheap suit and a fedora while smoking a cheap
cigar.......WeeGee comes to mind......