Are your principles killing your business?

[Read Time < 7 minutes]

Early in my career, I came across an interesting cat named Steve. I honestly can't remember his name, but it feels like his name was Steve.

Steve was a fellow Wedding Photojournalist like myself and passionately dedicated to his craft and the purity of photojournalism.

We had a lot in common, but he had a fatal flaw…

Now, I should give some context here because it is relevant and provides nice background on how modern wedding photography has evolved over the years.

Photojournalism, like any other journalism, if practiced properly, is the communication of news and information through photographs.

It's unbiased, unfiltered, and untouched, or to be less poetic, REAL.

When we think of photojournalists, we typically think of photographers diving in the dirt, ducking down behind a bombed-out car, taking cover while bullets whiz by and they continue clicking.

Those photographers are capturing the horrors of war - photographing soldiers peering behind their guns while they peer behind their cameras - unprotected and unafraid of the death and destruction all around them - just living to "get the shot."

Weddings aren't exactly like that, but it feels like it sometimes.

Wedding Photojournalism is everything I just described, minus the bullets.

When I shot my first wedding, I experienced the same rush many war photojournalists experienced. I was looking for that elusive and perfect moment to capture - occasionally ducking behind a piano.

It was exhilarating and when I committed to weddings as my career, THIS was how I wanted to shoot them. There was a bit problem, though.

At this time in history, this was not contemporary wedding photography.

Even though it was the mid 90’s, wedding photography was still stuck in the very old-school, super-posed traditions of the 80’s.

Lucky for me, two things happened around that same time.

1. Martha Stewart Weddings (the magazine) launched

2. The wedding of John Kennedy (JFK's son) to Carolyn Bessette, shot by Denis Reggie, a relatively unknown wedding photographer in Georgia.

Martha Stewart Weddings was different. It featured multi-page wedding spreads with a dozen or more photos from each wedding.

The weddings took place mostly outdoors with lots of fun crafty, yet designer touches, and the photos featured a new standard for weddings and wedding decor.

Even today, you can see how Martha Stewart changed the wedding world.

Backyard big-ticket boutique bridal became a real thing. Ever seen a cute chalkboard at a wedding? Martha did it. Cute photos of the couple hung on a string between trees...Martha. Mason jars for drinking glasses…moonshiners, but THEN Martha.

These weddings were all natural, and nothing was posed or looked like the common wedding photos of that time. This was very new, very cool and the wedding industry took notice.

Denis Reggie had been building his wedding business slowly for about a decade when he was asked to shoot a wedding for the Kennedy family. He certainly had the photographic skill but he also had a close family relative assist in the referral.

This led to the very famous and very private wedding of John Jr. and Carolyn. This wedding was so private that only two photos were seen from the wedding, but those two photos changed wedding photography forever.

They were unposed and unpretentious - honest and attainable…if you were prepared to capture the authentic moment (and NOT pose it.)

While I was still living in California and still considering wedding photography as my calling, I found myself in a small hotel meeting room listening to Denis speak to a group of photographers. Seeing these photos (more than just those two) and hearing him tell his story of that wedding day and his approach, he used the term Wedding Photojournalism, and my life changed.

"That's what I am!" I said to myself.

From that moment on, I, too, was a Wedding Photojournalist.

Thanks to Martha, this style was catching fire in creative California, but when I moved to Oklahoma a few months later, I was a really different breed of photographer.

I remember showing the photos of my first two weddings to one of the more successful pros in town. He was young unlike most of the wedding photographers, and I was hopeful this fresh new approach would appeal to a popular and more youthful pro who understood the importance of something new.

He looked at my photos, nodded and said, "Yeah, I do that "journalism thing' a little myself," and showed me one black and white photo…of a pair of shoes.

Yeah, you're probably thinking the same thing I did at the time, but he was a great photographer who did see value in my work, so much so that he offered me the chance to shoot with him.

Each wedding he gave me six rolls of black and white film and a hundred bucks for the day. I shot, he processed, and I could buy prints to add to my portfolio.

And for a year, I shot weddings, MY WAY (Sinatra would be so proud). His business grew, and so did my reputation.

He was getting hired partly for his beautiful classic photography and partly because of my work, which was very modern by Oklahoma standards.

For me, this was the way I always thought weddings should be shot.

I didn't pose anything. I looked for secret moments, pure moments that often went unseen by everyone…until they saw the photos. Then they became priceless.

It was fun, but I needed to take this show on the road, on my own.

I declined his offer to join his business and hung my own shingle as a Wedding Photojournalist. I know I wasn't the first, but I was the first in my town to brand himself as one.

As this new form of wedding photography grew over the years, so did the number of photographers who also adopted this style.

Some were great at it, some faked it, but it was a cool club, and that's where I met Steve (remember him from earlier?)

We weren't friends by any stretch, but we admired each other for our dedication to photojournalism.

He was a real photojournalist. He worked at newspapers and covered real events.

I was just a new wedding photographer, but I think Steve saw me as a kindred spirit. He saw my work and saw the wholesomeness of the moments - that's what journalism is, and I was flattered to be seen as a practitioner of the craft.

We both loved shooting and we were both pretty new to weddings.

For him weddings were a happy diversion, and though busy, it sure beat spending a day outside of a courtroom waiting for a glimpse of the "alleged" criminal of the week.

But I think he took things a bit too seriously.

We kept in touch and loved swapping "wedding war stories," but one day, the conversation changed.

He asked me, almost sheepishly, about working with the bride and the bride's mom.

He asked how I got around having to talk to them (or anyone) during the day.

He asked how I got around having to shoot the group photos of the family and the bridal party.

I was a bit confused, to say the least. "I don't get 'around' them, I shoot them." I mean, what else would I say?

"You do?!" he shot back. "I thought you were a photojournalist!" And then he hopped on the tirade train.

I got an amplified earful of him telling me that a true photojournalist has no interaction during the event. They are there to document the day, that's it.

I had to ask the question, "Soooo, you don't shoot the groups and family photos?" I asked.

"Nope, and I tell my bride that before the wedding so there's no confusion."

OK, I suppose that's one way to do it.

Our conversation ended shortly after that exchange and I didn't hear from Steve for a month or two.

The next time we spoke, he filled my ears again only this time with complaints that no one was hiring him, and he couldn't do this anymore.

Hmmm, I wonder why?

So there is a lesson here, and I'm sure you got it.

You are a Wedding Photographer. You shoot weddings, which means you shoot every part of the wedding, whether you like it or not.

Your unique and one-of-a-kind, soon-to-be-legendary style takes a backseat when the bride or the mother and father of the bride or the groom or the mother and father of the groom make a request of your photographic talents- even if it goes against your style.

You are there to serve. That's the gig.

You get to serve with your camera and your exceptional eye for the extraordinary instead of serving cake, or serving food, but you are still there to serve.

Don't be like Steve. He had principles (unusually high ones unfortunately), and his wedding career died on those principles.

Of course you get the opportunity to meet with the bride before her wedding (an opportunity I highly recommend, btw). Use this opportunity to learn as much about the bride just as she's learning about you.

If you don't think your work or personality is good fit, don't shoot the wedding, BUT remember what you're doing and why you're doing it.

Do you want to grow your business and become a successful wedding professional, or do you want to be like Steve and have a reputation of being a "great photographer but a real jerk?"

You know goes into a wedding day. There’s a time for the posed photos and there’s a time for your unique craftsmanship.

You can and should have principles, but you should also have the heart of a servant. Combine that with your killer photographic skills, and you have a recipe for greatness.

Providing outstanding service to your couples while retaining your uniqueness is just one of the little parts of the "inner game of wedding photography. THIS is what I write about each week in this newsletter.

If you want to be notified each Sunday morning when the new issue is posted, pop your email in and subscribe for free.

If you're interested in becoming a wedding photographer but don't know where to start, I can help.

Shoot me an email at [email protected]