There are some people out there who have taken to calling pretty pictures of weddings “wedding porn.” If so, then this book is a great example of quality wedding smut. Some of the images in here are absolutely mindblowing.
Photos are provided by Marcus Bell, Joe Buissink, Jim Garner, Gene Higa, Jeff and Julia Woods, Yervant, and a bunch of people who you might not have heard of. (You know, people like Jesh De Rox or Bambi Cantrell or Jessica Claire). If you’re looking for visual stimulation and inspiration, then this book is a great resource.
Because the emphasis is on quality images (best of, dontchaknow), there are some (indeed many) shots in here that most hardcore PJers would not consider “photojournalistic.” Sometimes the book acknowledges this with a cutline that begins “No, it’s not a strictly photojournalistic shot”. Often times, it does not.
Yes, these are brilliant photos, but I’m still not sold that they were needed in a book called “the Best of Wedding Photojournalism.” Personally, I am a mixed style shooter, but I have to admit that it feels a bit disingenuous to include these images. If I were to write a book called, say, the Best Bridal Portaits, and then start tossing in pictures of the groom, the best man, the bridesmaids, you might start to feel that the book had perhaps lost its focus. That the title of the book and the images just weren’t in sync.
Or maybe that’s just me. More problematic is the text, which is … how shall we say … not very challenging. Boilerplate. I’m pretty sure I’ve read these words before. The pictures are different, but the song remains the same.
The book starts off well enough, with a look at the history and techniques of photojournalism, but then moves into a section on equipment which doesn’t really add much to the whole process of photojournalism. Nor does the section on composition, or the section on posing for formals. (PJ Posing?)
Maybe that’s the trouble with the text. Maybe it isn’t (completely) that it’s boilerplate, but, as with some of the images, the text keeps forgetting that this is a book about photojournalism. I want to see the world of equipment through the eyes of a PJ shooter. There’s one throwaway line that says that “the days of exclusively medium-format cameras used for wedding photography are at an end, particularly for wedding photojournalists,” but nothing really comes of that idea. What role did 35 mm play in creating the PJ phenomenon? What role digital? What sort of gear is considered important for this style of shooting? But no, the text never really digs deep into the topic, keeping a journalistic distance that may be admirable, but doesn’t really add anything to the book. Every once in a while, there’s lip service to the idea. For instance, the section on prime lenses talks about shooting wide and end with the line “So, the faster (wider) the maximum aperture of the lens, the more desirable the lens is to the wedding photojournalist.” Really? Then lead off with that. Give me more about why using flash calls attention to itself.
I can feel the idea of Photojournalism trying to get through here, but for most of the book, it’s too general interest. Maybe I’m being too hard on it. The text isn’t poorly written or anything, it just didn’t move or inspire me. The same material, attacked from a different angle, probably would have been a lot more interesting. Often times, it isn’t the subject, but the point of view that makes the words interesting.
It’s a lot like photography, in that sense. What separates a brilliant photo (or book) from an average one is often little more than your perspective.
Then again, getting back to our original metaphor, who really picks up porn, even wedding porn, to read the articles anyway?
The Best of Wedding Photojournalism
Bill Hurter
Amherst Media
Back Home
6 Comments at "Review: The Best of Wedding Photojournalism"
Agreeed.
There is *no way* that front page image is Photojournalistic! I.e. that is carefully setup. It’s still a great image however. 
I totally agree with Jonathon, just because the wind blows doesn’t make an image photojournalistic.
And just because a wedding photographer says on their website that they are a PJ shooter doesn’t necessarily mean they are especially when all their website images look set-up too.
Perhaps “Photojournalism” as understood by many has now become like that of “Reality T.V.” is. Well let’s just say this stuff happened and someone caught it on film, tape, digital capture whatever. Sure, it has been documented but all natural and organic as viewed by a true bystander, NO.
Where is Brooks W. on all of this? Taking something for his upset stomach.
I doubt there is anything photojournalistic in this book judging from the names listed. I mean come on none of those photographers , while each stunning, shoots a wedding photojournalistic with no set up shots influenced verbally by the photographer. Further I doubt if they post process according to PJ standards. Just call it what it is a book of great wedding photography by great photographers
[...] few months back, we reviewed another book on Photojournalism, The Best of Wedding Photojournalism. That was a pretty book, but it didn’t really seem too concerned about the techniques of [...]
It’s all about selling the product and making a buck from the unsuspecting newbies who don’t know any better.
Comment Now!