The Classic Story Telling Shots ... What are they for you?

Are you asking for the traditional coverage 'must have' shots?

Bride with bridesmaids in a posed getting ready set up Bride alone, formal, full length (possible half length, more casual but still posed) Bride with parents Groom alone, formal, full length (possible half length, more casual but still posed) Groom with parents Groom with groomsmen, in a 'waiting in front of the church' situation Bride and father down aisle Back view of ceremony Kiss or recessional Head table at reception Toast Table shots of family tables First dance Cake cutting, posed Bouquet and garter toss Leaving in the car

Most are posed or directed. However, if you take away the posed part, the same images can still function as the bare bones of a modern story. After all, a wedding then had the same elements as a wedding now. A guy, a girl, their friends, their family... They get married, they receive their community, during which they eat, toast, cut a cake, possibly throw a bouquet and garter, and leave to start their life together. Of the shots above, the only real candids were likely the processional, back view of the ceremony, bouquet and garter tosses, and possibly the toast, first dance and leaving, although those could be posed.

Gee--don't know what happened to my list--it got all mushed together. Sorry.

Thanks Nadine ... I suppose I'm asking for the traditional list if George is referring to that from his wedding 25 years ago.

As I read your list I don't really see anything that unusual from what everyone seeks to capture today in some form or another.

Yes, the bare bones set of images is the same. I've looked at wedding albums from the 40s/50s--as George says, about 20-24 black and white 8x10s in an album. And I should add, above, rather than a guy and girl--two people...to be politically correct.

Hmm...I skipped over the family formals! Anyway, add wedding party formal, each immediate family formal. B&G formal. These are right after the ceremony.

Interesting way of asking a question that shows up quite ofter, which is "what shots do I take?";) There is a lot more depth to your question, which is a indicative of your experience. I'll take a stab at it.

I'm more of a documentary style of a shooter, yet I know which traditional/ posed/ must have shots need to be captured. Essentially, I work it counter-intuitively to the traditionalist; meaning, I document the day as it unfolds and stage the shots that are the essentials. Example, photograph the bride getting ready with the dad on standby, then get the mom and dad for a quick formal/ posed shot. This can often times be very emotional, and this is where my documentary hat pops back on. Same thing for the groom, emotions expressed differently often times, but emotional shots nonetheless. Often times if find that while posing the 1 tot shots (father and bride) I get then to look at one another and an emotional burst will occur, where to documentary cap comes back on.

So, long way around trying to answer your question from my perspective and experience is that each story is different, but I find that the shots liked by most of today's bride and groom's are the one's that capture the emotion, the staging of the CLASSIC SHOT^^/ posed shot often catches an eye, but gets replaced quickly when the emotional expressions are captured in the following shots, if that makes any sense.

As for a list, I've abandoned that. I've found it to interfere with the documentary (which I assume you would interpret as 'candid') scenes. There is something more to that last statement that I will clear, from my perspective. I personally see a difference between candid and documentary. Personally I see documentary much more academic and technical since a planed approach is set into motion (meaning lens selection, aperture, ambient light, ISO, shutter speed, flash implementation, etc.) to not only achieve proper exposure but to capture the scene for dramatic effect, or to expose with a planned post production method in mind (which may not necessarily be 'proper' at time of capture). A candid shot, by definition, is taken informally, without the subjects knowledge. So, from the aspect previously mentioned (planning/ calculating) I don't think documentary is necessarily informal, it is however, non-TRADITIONAL, which I would agree on. (Nothing wrong with traditional in my mind by the way.) Just thoughts;)

Sorry, that's meant to be '1 to 1 shots' above - not 1 tot.

I`d like to put a different spin on this and not just provide a `list`, I think, if restricted to `a list of 20`, most lists would be very similar. I`d rather attack the question from another angle.

Criterion for the 20 photos to Tell the Story and are which are Important:

1. Each is a cracker image.

I understand that this is not the type of answer / comment you are seeking, and, I do think that it might be very important to some clients that there must be a shot of the ACTUAL `cake cutting` . . .

But as an example of my spin on the question: if the Cracker shot was the B&G behind the cake with Champagne glasses just touching and that special glint in both their eyes both in half profile, their hands off the knife, but it seen remaining in the cake . . .

Then that is `The Cake` shot which is the most `Important` and should be included in the twenty, to tell the story . . . IMO.

WW

I appreciate the feedback ... it's limited as I suspected it would be but the quality of the responses is helpful and insightful.

I found myself wondering if the classic Traditional shot was code for taking a "safe" shot from a rather boring and static position and it involved little creative energy from the photographic artist with the end result being a method that best fits the photographer as opposed to what a modern client wants in today's digital age.

Todd and William make me breath a bit easier but I'm still puzzled as to what it means to have 20 shots in an album hold a sense of reverence over having many more shots of the event via the digital age tool box.

If having 20 photos in 8 x 10 is what satisfies people 25 years later then a lot of people are doing this wrong right now; and I don't think they're doing it wrong ... I think they are using more modern tools and giving service based on the needs of the savvy customer who has grown up in a Digital Age and expects and wants more even though they want the same 20 shots they want more! (I just chuckled to myself).

I find that taking the safe / traditional shot is a must-have shot but then I keep seeking another angle and another viewpoint to shoot the scene from ... another way to tell the story of that part of the wedding day celebration. I find that the digital age now allows us that opportunity and it would be a shame to have the equipment and the artistic eye to capture more than a "classic" shot during one of the classic / traditional moments in a wedding.

Our children want something different from the norm and I think the bridal couples of today want the traditional shots but they also appear hungry for "more". They want the shot from different angles and they want the shot taken with the cake in the center of the floor (not hidden in a corner, ug!).

Giving a bridal couple 1000 shots of a wedding does not mean that one has not captured the 20 shots that can make up a memorable album! This is my point!

It's what I was wanting to get clarity on from those who respect (rightfully) the good ol' days of 20 classic shots in an album is the way to go. I agree. But, can the box be filled with a few more shots for Today's bridal couple. I think it's a good thing to give families more photos. They've grown up in a Digital Age ... why hold back!

We are in an active media oriented age and the customer desires the use of the available tools and they desire an end product which is "active" in nature and still includes the magic 20 shots. No right or wrong just a different toolbox and a more savvy and demanding customer. ?? dunno ...

This past weekend I did find myself checking to see if I was capturing those classic 20 shots as mentioned and listed by Nadine. I think that I was losing sight of some of those moments so a review of the classic moments and the 20 shot album was wonderful. The quiet review of the classic moments gave me anchor points.

These anchor points in a wedding day are important for beginners to learn.

Do those who shoot only for the 20 classic shots have anything to learn in a digital age with digital savvy customers?

20 classics?

Not much interested in telling a stilted and cloying story using human mannequins in unfamiliar arraignments that are forced to smile on cue. I do a few of these for Grandma's mantel, but try not to need them to complete an album or slide show that expresses the uniqueness of the two individuals, their love for one another, and their relationship to their friends and family.

Expectations of myself?

A touching, real moment between mom and daughter as the Bride prepares.

The inherent tension and anticipation prior to the procession.

Processionals: while I shoot the whole thing, I never put the whole processional in the album. Kids maybe, Bride and Dad, absolutely.

The moment when Dad let's go of his little girl and gives her hand in marriage to "the other man in her life."

Real candid images of the couple getting married. I never repose these shots. Each thing as it happens from the best vantage point I'm allowed: wide shot of the church if interesting; praying, hugging, candle lighting, ring exchange, first kiss, exit.

The forced alter portraits. Grandma and parents expect them ... so I do them. I try to get something nice of the wedding party, Bride and the Bride and Groom to cover my behind. But the real goal is to not have to use them in an album by getting better candid shots with them more relaxed and themselves ... especially if you can catch the couple canoodling. I include 2 posed shots in an album ... the wedding party and the B&G ... if I can replace those with unposed shots I will.

Something interesting in the Limo ... but only IF it happens.

One reception entrance shot ... maybe ... IF there is a really great expression on the couple's face or they do something different. Like one couple entered with the Bride getting a horsey back ride from her new husband. I shoot the whole announcement thing because it's expected, but NEVER include much of it in an album unless it's interesting.

Cake cutting ... just set it up with all their friends and family around them and let people be people. And I never stop shooting because B&Gs do the darnedest things.

Toasts: there's always some reaction to the insider humor, and tears of rememberance of youthful attachments, on the part of the speaker and Bride or Groom. More candid fodder for the album.

Flower toss. Okay, gotta do this one ... it's forced and goofy, but still candid and anything can and does happen.

First dance and Parent's dances ... all candid and loaded with fleeting and glimmering emotional moments ... which so many wedding photographers miss that it astounds me.

The rest is a determined hunt for real interaction between the B&G and their loved ones.

My favorite shot of the Bride from last Saturday's wedding:

Thanks Marc ... helpful as usual.

I've been pretty successful getting the couples to bring the cake out of the corner lately. Currently working on getting the people doing the toasting to try to stand as near as possible to the bride and groom so all can be in some of the images.

(I really think the bridal party processional shots are the most boring and needless photos taken at a wedding but they seem to be a must-have shot even though those lovely people are in dozens of shots through out the day.)

I agree with many comments and most of what Marc writes above. I also think that a traditional portrait can help to "tell the story". The bride's hair, makeup, dress, etc... is all picture perfect, then you get "the eyes".... for me, that is the story. The reluctant flower girl, the flirty bridesmaid, the tender expressions from dad during the father-daughter dance, all classic but never cliche'.

I'm also OK to re-create a shot here and there. Typically I'll get the ring exchange from the back of the church, later we'll restage during the formals as a closeup of the hands/rings and afterwards that image can be dropped into the slideshow or album so that it looks seemless. Seems like half the time the B/G don't remember that the closeup was shot later.

Sometimes I don't worry about telling the whole story. My last wedding I didn't get a single shot of the scuffle/fight and completely skipped shooting the cops and the squad car. Sometimes, "less is more".

There are several aspects to your question which seem to collide and confuse. First, my list above is a list of the shots I have seen in those 40s and 50s black and white, 8x10 wedding albums, more or less. You could take out the parents shots and table shots and distill the list even further. Why did these shots make the album and why did those photographers take them? Because they ARE the bare bones of the wedding day story, then and now. Back then, the equipment got in the way a lot more than now. I am sure that if they could, photographers back then would have shot a thousand images in the most PJ style they could. As it stood, they were using medium format, even single shot cameras with flashbulbs (in the 40s), and had film costs to consider. Much of the posing was necessary due to equipment limitations. So calling these images boring, restrictive, static, (fill in whatever negative you can think of) is somewhat of a cop out. They did what they could with what they had. Did it tell the story? Yes. The basic function of serving as a record of the day (I assume to help people remember the day) was served.

If you look at wedding photography in relation to technological progression, you can easily see how the gear has shaped the images taken. Now it is possible to be a fly on the wall the whole day and not pose anyone and still come away with many images from which a full and varied story can be made. Now it is possible to get all the emotion and action in the day. Does this mean the basic shots are no longer valid? No. They may change a little in nature, but I bet if you omitted a shot from the basic list above, the couple will notice. Some more than others, such as the bride and dad in the processional--I bet today's bride will notice if you didn't take that image.

How does this affect today's wedding photographer? Basically, you take the basic, must get shots, traditionally if you want to cover your behind, and then in a different way if you want to and/or have the time, and then photograph everything else that tells the story, given the opportunity, or make the opportunity, depending upon your style. You do so because you can. Even so, if you are truly covering the day and creating a story for your couple, you will, by default, get all the basic, must get shots. How could you not?

Then there is what makes it into the album. Consider that we don't know what else was shot at weddings long ago, because all we see is what made it into the album, so those must be the bare bones story elements (?). What is interesting and tells a story from the photographer's viewpoint is (I bet) often not the same as what the client thinks is interesting and wants in their album. There are so many choices these days since so many images are taken. I bet it was very simple back then. I also bet that most of the image listed above make it into today's albums too, in one form or another.

There seems to be a misconception that traditional means staid, and posed like deer caught in the headlights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But a wedding story is pretty much the same, and to tell the story there are certain images that contribute to the story. There are also certain images that will need to be posed for posterity, those are the posed family formals after the ceremony. And while the "modern" shooter may think them silly and irrellevant, I will lay odds that they not old enough to have been married for a number of years, and to look back at those photos with nostalgia because they include their grandparents that have died long ago, or the favorite aunt that they spent many enjoyable days with as a child, etc.

But of those that deliver thousands of shots, how many of you sit with the bride and groom as they go through all of those images? We as photographers may notice the minor nuiences between shots, but the bride and groom will not. You show them a series of shots taken of the same people in the same positions, they will look at the first shot, then flip through the rest with amazing speed. I doubt very many will flip through all of the images before they give up in boredom.

You just need enough images to tell the story, not multiple variations of the same images.

For the tradional list that works out to about 100 in total.

The real choice is do you orcastrate events, or do you do the fly on the wall and catch the events. The best coverage combines the two.

"I doubt very many will flip through all of the images before they give up in boredom. "

That has not been my experience. I actually on occasion get the, "... we love them all and can't decide on which to put in album ..." comments. Not bragging, just pointing out the fact that, in my experience, brides want the documentary approach most often. Also this brings up another interesting point, I've noticed the "Traditional Shots" getting larger in number with the definition of the modern family. I experience splits (divorce and remarriage) often - sometimes on bot sides of the family. I'm sure some of these folks from 40 years ago didn't have this element present in their wedding experience. Sometimes these step-members are very close to the bride or groom and are "must have's" in the bride's mind - which needs to be accommodated for. So, in part, there is more at play in William's question than just the introduction of digital cameras and large memory cards breaking volume barriers over the number of film exposures constraining. Any photographer throwing up thousands of images and seeing what sticks is a bad approach, an abomination to the profession. But, what I see brides wanting documented is, absent of words, the story that is unwritten and unsaid. Now, how to get to 20 photo's in an album is hard. I can get from 1200 to 200 quite easily. But, I would venture to say with today's family structure, as I mentioned before, only the bride can direct me to those 20 pictures to put in an album. You know, it is a sign of the times, I even see grandparents with digital frames now that hold 200 pictures so that they don't have to always view the same ones, and grandma doesn't get bored looking at each one.

BTW, I hope traditional is not staid as well. Traditional shots are, in my mind, the must haves - the foundation. It's just the definition of traditional appears to be evolving to capture the story as it is today.

And, as a photographer who provides 1000+ images, I never have the bride and groom looking at minor nuances from scene to scene. The picture needs to have a reason, a defining quality, and in my mind should be included for the sake of numbers. Now I have shot at 8 FPS and captured scenes that end up with 3 photos in a row, presented side by side, that belong together and serve to state a 'phrase' in the telling of the story - but each can stand on their own.

Sorry ^^"... should NEVER be included for the sake of numbers."

My experience is similar to Todd ... time and time again.

They love the 1000 or so photos and then ask if there are seconds ... that's when I laugh. (Nope, I don't give in ... they don't get them).

I find that asking the bridal couple to pick their favorite 40 to 60 images for the album makes them feel limited, especially when I tell them to focus on spreading their "limited" choices over the entire wedding day. It's fascinating to see what they pick.

I shoot a lot because I see a lot that either the bride or groom just don't get a chance to see and think they might be interested in seeing it later.

I like to honor the 20 (or so) traditional shots mentioned above; they do exist in one form or another and they can be captured in one form or another. It's evolution amid the revolution of digital and the high energy tools available to us. ?

Sorry to collide and confuse Nadine ... you're right! I think it's representative to the state of wedding photography at this stage: the traditional is morphing and film has (temporarily?) taken a back seat and a new bridal couple wants an end product that represents the new tools and processing yet they also have parents and grandparents that have lived in different era. How exciting, and yes, confusing it all seems to be at this time.

Sorry, I still do not see how you can go through an 8 hour day and get from 1000-2000 images without lots of duplicates. At 1000 images it works out to one every 30 seconds, at 2000 images it works out to one every 15 seconds, for the entire 8 hours. I simply do not see enough different possible interesting images to warrent that much photography.

And assuming the bride and groom are perusing the photos and only taking 15 seconds each , that's still between 4-8 hours just to view them. Even videographers don't provide that much coverage in a final tape of the entire day.

Todd--I agree that brides appreciate the 'unwritten and unsaid' story, but on top of the basic images, which don't have to be traditional in approach, just content. I also don't get couples flipping through their images in boredom. Most of them eat it ALL up, and want more, but this is understandable. It's their story. I do, however, get couples who can't decide upon what to put in their album--so much so that they put it off for a long time.

I also think that parents and grandparents would have appreciated the hundreds/thousands of images were they taken at weddings back then, just as modern couples do, although most brides back then would probably not have allowed a male photographer anywhere near her dressing room during the actual getting ready, let alone be photographed semi clad. Things changed socially, too.

2 cameras, 1 with 17-55 and other with 85 or 70-200. 8 hours - usually 800 - 100. 10 hours - 1000+. Example, with those 2 bodies shooting the bride and groom at the alter and knowing to turn immediately and capture the expression or tear on the mother's face. Also, shooting wide and narrow the same subject in close succession. There's your same old story to tell, and then there is a story with more depth.

Above response was to Rebecca.

Nadine, funny, I still ask the bride if it is okay for me to touch the dress, and always will.

Rebecca--most photographers who shoot over a thousand/two thousand images edit it down to a smaller number to give to clients. Some techniques involve shooting a lot of one particular action and then picking the best one, two or three images that represent that action and throwing out the rest. You can shoot a lot hoping for the best expression. There is also experimentation, which you can do without penalty now. You can try this or try that, bracket for technical reasons, and just use what came out the best. You can have multiple photographers, all shooting the same thing from different angles and viewpoints, even style. These techniques don't have anything to do with skill level, although there are abuses, such as gunning throughout the day with abandon. And older photographers used to film, usually don't use these techniques as much or at all. They are more used to waiting for the moment, so to speak. So working out the number of images per hour, or whatever, is not a useful figure. The thousands of images are not each a unique image, but the duplicates are not really duplicates in the strict sense of the word. I believe the goal is to shoot more because you can, but edit tighter for a very strong and complete set of storytelling images. I personally don't shoot over a thousand images, but allow that there may be good reasons to do so.

I also don't think quantifying viewing time is useful. In my opinion, 15 seconds is way too long. Plus, similar images are flipped through, not necessarily in boredom. In addition, young people today are used to looking at many images--the more, the better--without suffering any melt down at all.

Maybe it is because I learned to shoot with a Speed Graphic, where it takes you 20 minutes to set up for a shot, that I've never gone to the more is better. Even when I graduated to medium format, and 35 mm, I always thougtht my shots through first.

I guess it all comes down to timing and the ability to see and capture without multiple shots.

I might suggest going out and trying to shoot some baseball and hockey - make a point of catching the ball as it is hit by the bat, and the puck as it crosses the goal line. A fast motor drive won't help you there, multiple shots won't help, in the time between shots the puck or the ball will have moved completly through the frame. So you have to develop your timing, and when you can get it down to where you have more hits than misses, you will also see a dramatic improvement to the rest of your shooting. And you will be able to pick the moment, and save hours on the editing side.

Rebecca,

Where are a sample of your shots? I'd love to see them.

It seems the notion of the original question has gotten lost.

"Classic Story Telling Shots ... what are they for you?"

I do not think anyone is disputing the content of a wedding ... it is what it is. Of course you shoot the Bride being escorted down the aisle by her Dad. Who said you don't?

It's how you approach the content that defines "Classic" ... "Story" ... and "For You"

For me, Classic Story telling saw it's Golden Age in 1950s Life magazine photo essays. That insightful vision is what I personally aspire to, not some forced conformity of approach for "must have" wedding shots.

In the past, if equipment were the limitation (as opposed to constipated creativity : -), then how did the very father of the "Decisive Moment" that drives a lot of modern wedding work pull it off so well in the early 30s? Or the legions of legends that followed in the decades that followed?

The example given of forced images of loved ones being prized by clients just because they are who they are ... now to me that's the real cop out.

One can shoot the "same old same old" of the Bride and Grandma ... or one can stay emotionally alert and capture a real moment between the Bride and Grandma ... then you have something for the client to really prize.

I could have taken the easy way out and shot Grandma and the Bride in a formulaic and expected manner ... but I didn't.

I don't think the original notion of the question got lost because there was more than one question. The What Are They For You was in the title. Here are the rest--"I do wonder if it's specific to a particular client style or are these classic shots simply Universal in nature? Would the current young bridal couple hire a person who shoots these shots today? Can you list the CLASSIC SHOTS that still satisfy years later? ...are they all set up shots? Is there any room for "candid" photographs in the list (what are they)?" That's why I said the thread was a bit confused. Plus William referenced the album George mentioned in another thread, which was an old album.

The examples I listed were from old wedding albums. They aren't what I shoot now, although they ARE in that a form of each of those shots is somewhere in the coverage. As I said above, if you are covering everything in the day, how can you NOT photograph everything listed, just maybe in a different form than used to be in the 'old' days? Your example is Bride with Grandma, just not formally posed. Prized by the client? Absolutely. Would it make it into the album over the formal one? Not so sure, if the couple were picking a limited number. In addition to the formal one...maybe. In fact, I can see a 50s wedding photographer shooting the same picture, called a candid back then, but it failed to make it into the album because the package was 20 8x10s in an album. As I said above, we don't know what else was shot.

As for the Decisive Moment issue--most of those were not at weddings (dim churches and all...), plus I repeat--do we really know what else was shot? I would guess that some real emotional moments were captured--more than we think. While I do recall some wedding coverages in Life Magazine, the notion of PJ coverage at a wedding, for your average couple (not a celebrity) did not come along til much later.

Todd

I have no reason to run a website, and will not post photos of my clients in a public forum.

A formal over the candid ? ... I can assure you the "formal" didn't make the album ... the one shown above did ... it was a three hanky shot for this Bride : -)

Dim church? Sorry to disagree, but many of the classic shots were done in dimly lit Cafes and at night. It was the advent in the early '30s of the Leica Rangefinder that brought around that approach to a great degree. And just like today, they had tripods back then.

I also offer a service of re-scanning and restoring old weddings with a Imacon 949 for negs, and an Epson V750 Pro for Prints ... a few from the 40s, 50s, and one great one from the mid 1960s. Unlike many older weddings, some of these people had all the negatives ... which is somewhat unusual I thought.

So I have seen what was "also shot" beside what usually went into the album. And there were indeed "candids" but most of them were NOT shot by the Official Wedding Photographer who tended to stick to the formulaic list of the "usual suspects." Without the guest shots with a Brownie ... or in one case an Uncle with a Leica M3, the story of these older weddings would be exactly the same as the next one with different faces on the mannequins.

It is relatively easy to tell a sort of "universal" story with the old photos, but very difficult to tell a unique one about that specific couple.

I'd have to agree with Rebecca on timing. The real magic is that decisive moment, not a spray of shots without regard to what makes a still photo so magical ... that nano second of frozen time that most people never see in the rushing, whirling thing that is a Wedding.

In the end, different people want and expect different things. They want all the usual shots, but if not presented with a fresh perspective, most people will just go with what was before. It's comfortable.

Lovely photograph Marc.

Sometimes I feel it's a bit unfair to label or tag those who click a lot of frames as spray shooters leaving the reader with the implication that shooting a lot of frames means one has little regard for magical moments and even has no ability to capture such moments.

Is there not room for bursts of shots at hectic / frantic parts of the wedding day and then there's time for "seeing" and anticipating the soft magical moment.

The two legitimate methods can exist very nicely imo. (It's certainly not the case all the time but it can and does happen; it can be a legitimate / personal style).

A wedding day has an ebb and flow to it. The pace of the photography should, imo, match the pace of the wedding in a general sense.

My bet is that one would not assume that all photographers that capture a lot of photos do not get precious moments. I will be the first to admit that I have to tell myself to slow down, at times, and let the action unfold and watch and wait which is the energy behind my original post at the top. It's so helpful to hear from others and dig a bit deeper and continually self assess how I work a wedding ... always wanting to improve and discover what others are "thinking" as they photograph a wedding day.

One must have an eye for spotting potential magical moments as they develop and I think that's where the classic / traditional anchor points mentioned in this thread might be helpful ... just knowing there is a great potential for a magic moment at some specific slices in the wedding day timeline is a great start to capturing moments that can later be a part of a dynamic album (whether it's for a 20 pages with 20 photos or 80 pages with a couple hundred photos in the album; but that's another thread, lol).

Good points William. One should not assume lots of exposures means missed moments. Yet, I do think what you described as slowing down is more the point. It's hard to see and feel very much when the camera is being used like a Gatling Gun.

Good points both William and Marc. I find myself saying "slow down" too, as William mentioned. Hard for me, as I still have a lot of habits that carried over from working as a private investigator, where I always captured as much as possible because I may not be presented the opportunity again. I do predetermine and time some of my shots (as I've always done), but I do find myself doing that more and more. This has been a great thread, I haven't helped to answer much of William's original post but it has made me reflect a bit.

Marc--I'm glad your bride saw the value of your candid over the formal, but with my clients, I would not be so sure the candid would make it into an album, particularly if there were limits on the number of images going in. We can only speak from our own experience and clientele, and that's where I was coming from.

As for the dim churches--your point about Leica rangefinders coming into their own in the 30s and the Decisive Moment era is exactly my point. Wedding photographers were not using them at weddings, for whatever reason, I don't know. Probably felt the quality was not sufficient (35mm) and the general public was not ready for that kind of treatment of weddings (?). The dim churches comment was in reference to using medium format with slow ISO film and possibly not having the luxury of photographing an arc of action (single shot camera). Even if using a Rollei with a Honeywell Strobonar, it was probably considered wasteful to use up a roll of 12 shots following action. I've seen contact sheets from Decisive Moment photographers, and they usually shot a series of frames before and after the Decisive Moment, not discounting the skill necessary to recognize THE moment and push the shutter button. Shooting in dim cafes, the film was probably pushed Tri-X or something (?), which would not have been considered good quality for wedding photos. The tripod comment--not sure what to make of that.

As for what else was shot--again, I can only speak from experience. When I worked as an apprentice in a photo studio in the late 60s, early 70s, I saw what the photographer shot, and I saw first hand what went into the album, because I prepared the proof books and albums. There were plenty of candids--very good, PJ shots by today's standards that never went into the albums. Shots just like your sample. I've even shot ones like your sample that never went into the album. Now, back in the 40s and 50s, I can't say...but I would guess that given the chance a photographer with good instincts would have taken the shot. All wedding photographers back then were not all robots (I would hope).

I also agree with William re using bursts at weddings. Of all people, I should be on the anti-Gatling Gun side, because I came from a film background, and studied commercial/illustration/table top photography, which demanded control and deliberate shooting. I still don't use bursts much, but I have deliberately tried to incorporate it at times and find that I have had good results, again, not forgetting to exercise the Decisive Moment zen techniques. I don't see why they can't co-exist. Why not use the best of all the techniques available?

Probably should be a different thread, but this is related to why people make the decisions they do about their wedding photos. I often think about those formals that wedding photographer love to hate. I personally don't hate them--both for themselves and shooting them. I find beauty in a well done formal. I love looking at the formals from my parent's and friends' weddings. Part of wedding photography is pure documentation, not only of what happened, but the way we all looked--the full faces of people, the way they stood, what they wore (in minute detail). To me, it is fascinating--even strangers' wedding formals. Because of this, I can see why someone might want to put the formal in the album over the candid. Of course, both would be better.

Anyway, I'd like to thank you William, for posting the question. I got a lot out of the discussion, and learned a lot, as always, from the excellent discourse following. And thanks, Marc and everyone, for making that discourse compelling, as always. Good meaty topic. The threads were getting a bit anemic lately.