Philosophy
The Integrity of Wedding Photography
I think it is important to be clear about what happens when a photographer is involved in a situation. Not all direction looks like posing or giving instructions. Sometimes it is much less visible: a suggestion, a repositioning, a repeated attempt to create a certain interaction, or simply the expectation that people should behave in a particular way for the photograph.
“it is the choice to let lived experience take precedence over how it appears”
There is nothing inherently wrong with directing. It is a legitimate way of making pictures, and some forms of photography depend on it completely. But it produces something different. When the photographer begins shaping the behaviour in front of the camera, the photograph no longer only records the situation itself; it also records the result of that direction.
My way of working is based on keeping that distinction clear. I do not want the people at a wedding to become performers in a scene designed for the photograph. They remain themselves, and the camera responds to what happens rather than asking them to produce something for it.
Some of the most important things at a wedding are not available on demand. A conversation continues, people settle into one another, an atmosphere changes, or something unexpected develops in a few seconds. These things cannot be produced on request. They require the photographer to stay attentive and allow enough time for them to happen.
This means working with patience rather than trying to make every moment useful for the camera. Instead of constantly steering the room towards a photograph, I wait, observe and respond to what develops.
This way of working leaves room for things to unfold without needing to be turned into something for the camera.
There are many legitimate visual languages in photography, and I do not believe they need to be placed in competition with one another. Film or digital, restrained or highly stylised, polished or textured, closely composed or more open—these are all creative choices. Photography has always allowed for a wide range of forms, and I do not think one of them needs to justify its existence over another.
What matters to me is something different: how the photograph came to exist. A directed interaction can appear spontaneous at first glance, and a carefully constructed image can convincingly suggest that nothing was arranged. But however convincing the appearance may be, it cannot replace what actually happened. For me, nothing in a photograph is more valuable than the reality of the situation it came from. A photograph may draw from fashion, cinema or editorial photography and still come from a way of working that leaves the people and the occasion largely untouched. This is where a clear photographic stance and a distinct visual language can become powerful together: one determines how the photograph is made, the other how that way of seeing is expressed.
This distinction matters because visual style and photographic approach are not the same thing. One describes how a photograph looks; the other describes the photographer’s relationship to the events taking place in front of the camera. For me, that relationship is based on observation rather than instruction. I want the visual character of the photograph to come from the way I see and frame what happens, not from manufacturing the situation that I then photograph.
Next Up
Cinéma Vérité
Examining the friction between manufactured staging and unforced presence. It considers how the expectation to perform can alter an atmosphere and change the way people relate to one another. The text looks at how a non-intrusive camera can remain close to an event without directing it, allowing interactions to retain the circumstances from which they arose.