Or course, I couldn’t really say how to do that, but that would make for a pretty short article. However, I did tally the results of 137 images from the previous two years, as well as reviewing the images submitted over the past couple of days, and there do seem to be some distinct discrepancies between what people submit and what actually wins. Can you gain an advantage by looking for certain things? I think so. There’s nothing terribly scientific about this, so do what you will with this information and draw your own conclusions. If you have something you love, enter it. Better to try than not. But if you’re trying to figure out the best way to invest your $35, here are a few thoughts. The past surely won’t confirm the future, but there seems to be some consistency from year to year. I’ll start with the summary, and the details will follow.
THE SUMMARY
Though I tallied the winners from previous years I did not actually tally the entries for this year, so here I don’t have as detailed data. But there were definitely some things that stood out. Most notably was the emphasis on portraits and staged images. At the times I reviewed the submissions, based on my rough counts, they were exceeding the documentary shots by at around 60/40 or a little more. However, of the 137 images reviewed from the prior two years of winners, only 31 were portraits. So just by going for a portrait, you’re already going at a 2:9 disadvantage, just by the number of spots open. When you factor in that more people are competing in these categories for fewer spots, that number disparity becomes even greater. If 60/40 holds, it would mean it’s actually 4:27 (or 2:13.5).
Among those that were portraits, though not too common, I did take notice of a few things which didn’t make it into the winners circle in the past two years. Brides with big, brash smiles and images using fill flash outdoors (or, if there was fill flash, it wasn’t in an out and out obvious fashion. There were some shots with flash, however) didn’t get in. Also, sexier images of brides, and overtly romantic gestures also didn’t hit the mark. Does that mean there are opportunities to go that route now? It depends on how you think it’s trending, but while the changes from year to year are substantial, I suspect not. With a strong editorial trend pushing the industry, I would guess more natural and subtle will continue to be the way to go.
Were there romantic shots? Yes, absolutely. But less commonly of the bold gesture nature. When romantic images won, what distinguished them was delicacy and subtlety. Romantic shots were soft and flowy. Whispy more than bold. In short, if it looked like classic wedding photography, even circa 2006 or 2007, it was out in the past couple of years. The things to look for to see if you have a winner if the image is romantic are arm bends that show softness, fluid lines and hip curves, natural gazes, and avoiding stiff necks and faces. If the pose is going to be more bold in nature the one thing that has a chance of saving it is exceptional light and environment. But they’ve got to be very distinct. Light that is uncommonly complex or environment that bucks most trends (an exotic location would likely help).
One of the better opportunity in all categories are quirky shots. Some form of humor was a common element across the board. They didn’t dominate, but I think wit can definitely carry the day, as they showed up frequently, and submissions were fairly infrequent of this type. In more general terms, images with strong messages will likely carry the day. The biggest mistake I saw in the submissions is that many that go for quirky veer more towards odd. None of the winners in the past two years were out and out strange. They were normal with a twist. It was more about a slight element of humor. I’d focus on looking for images that show wit over images that show oddities for the best odds.
The bigger opportunity seems to lie in the documentary area. Complex wide scope shots didn’t even appear in the submissions I saw, nor did concept shots. So even though those only comprised a modest percentage, there are so few being submitted that they’d probably stand out. Also, of course, if portraits are running at a 2:9 disadvantage, assuming equal submissions of both types of images, then documentary shots run at a 9:2 advantage. Not a bad start, in and of itself. I would guess complex shots used with wide angles that have multiple elements will run at even more of an advantage.
If you’re submitting simpler compositions, look for the images with an additional edge. Almost all of the pictures were either very natural or quite sincere. But there’s usually a component past that. Beautiful light, an interesting compositional decision, or distinct intensity that is almost over-the-top, but not quite. Again, quirkiness was a common theme. Look for humor items.
Finally, look for solid light and clean composition. These were consistent. There weren’t a lot of distractions in most of the winners, and light was nearly always solid, and often quite beautiful.
THE DETAILS – How I came up with this
In basic terms, I first broke up the images into two types. Documentary winners and portrait winners. I omitted detail shots, because, well, I can’t quite make heads or tails of exactly what makes a detail win. If I had to give an answer, I’d say that those who manage to do something clever have an advantage, but it is the one category where tried and true clearly has a chance. I would add that it also seems to revolve a lot around the nature of the detail, so tried and true of something novel is far more likely to succeed than time-tested and common. And that’s all I really can figure about the details.
Documentary Winners
So let’s start with documentary. Of the 137 images reviewed, 106 images fit the bill for documentary images. Of those 106, 19 were either wide in scope (e.g. showing large crowds) or were shot closer in, but were built of multiple components throughout the frame (e.g. a close-up of a face combined with several people in the background). 5 were concept shots, where it was about a pattern and composing the shot in a way to make that pattern clear. And 82 were straightforward, meaning that, regardless of whether there were many people or a few in the image, that the focus was very clearly on one thing. The majority in this class were fairly simple in subject matter. The ones with crowds were usually shots walking down the aisle, since the other crowd shots, I placed as wide scope images.
Among the wide scope shots, the wider and further back it was taken, the more it was about the form of the picture. Truly, the big picture stuff, where you could see a pattern in the crowd, or where it was really about the way the crowd interacted, as opposed to the specific action taking place. The closer the wide scope shots were, the more they became about dynamic actions with strong emotions. There was often an oddity or expression or body language involved. Usually, such actions served one of two purposes. They either were very human reactions that though surprising because they were out of place at a wedding, were distinctly understandable and familiar. These served the purpose of connecting us with the images and showing how weddings are events with regular people The other type of oddity would appear where some part of the body wasn’t quite in a normal position. Never anything so dramatic that it was strange. Just little things. An ever so slight overextending or bending or doing something that only happens in the heat of the moment. In these cases, these actions tended to enforce the authenticity of the image, so they served a different purpose than in the other images.
Not surprisingly, the straightforward shots, with 82 of them, were much more varied. 14 were quirky in some way. Close-ups tended to be iconic, with a hint of quirkiness (a hand or finger bending in an unusual way, a close-up of something symbolic). Classic shots that conform to the common notions of wedding photography almost always had some surprising element. Again, quirkiness is the best description. Usually laced with a hint of humor, and never pushed to the point of being genuinely odd or flat out weird, there was a subtle restraint that didn’t so much place the focus of the picture so much on the the weird thing that happened, so much as it allowed the picture to communicate how odd the universe can be. In other words, the strangeness was used to make a statement about people and the world surrounding us. If I’m not quite conjuring up the point, the best I can say is to look at some of the works of Martin Parr, Richard Kalvar, or Bruce Gilden. All examples of oddness that aren’t so much for the sake of oddness as to reveal our nature or the strange coincidences that come up. Two examples that come to mind were a dress being put on under an animal head and a groom putting on a tie in front of a picture of two maids. Of the remainder of the straightforward shots, they usually had one of three other characteristics, if it wasn’t the quirkiness or symbolism. They had distinct and unusual use of space, back lighting or strikingly nice light, or interesting environments.
One quality that was very distinct about most of the straightforward shots was that the simpler the shot was, the more delicate the body language or subtle the expression was. And delicate and subtle are the key words. Little things, like an arm extended just right or curved softly. Good curves and lines mattered. There was quite typically some small element of surprise. In fact, almost all of the shots in general for all categories had a nice flow to them. They tended to conjure up a certain sense of motion or emotional transition.
Portrait Winners
Of the portraits reviewed, there were only 31. Some were omitted, because I didn’t fully review all of the series for either portraits or documentary images, though I reviewed the series more carefully for portraits than for documentary shots. Among the portraits I did review, I’d categorize 6 as sincere, 11 as romantic, and 14 as quirky. There’s that word again. The difference between sincere and romantic is that the sincere images focused more on portraying the character of the individuals, as a classic portrait would, while the romantic ones were usually about more gestures to show a connection between the couple.
The quirky portraits were generally distinguished by either some spatial effect (least commonly) such as off composition or small subject size relative to the picture, or by some environmental factor (most commonly) paired with an atypical stance to convey a certain awkwardness and uniqueness about the character of the couple. Environmental items tended to be either exceptionally nice environments (e.g. a field of flowers with soft backlighting) or off-the-beaten-path environments, ranging from a car to a home to an ice cream truck. Environment makes a difference.
In all images, light matters. It was rare that the light was less than nice. And in the cases where lighting was more plain, pictures were usually stronger in emotional intensity or concept to compensate. In general, though plenty of techniques were utilized, and though there was the occasional gimmick, most of the pictures possessed a certain element of distinction that went beyond tactics and technique, much as pictures should, to show something about what weddings and people are like. About the series winners, I will say this. These were the times that technique was most likely to carry the day. Series were judged as such. So breadth of technique and range were able to make up for the fact that each individual shot wasn’t necessarily as powerful. Some were stronger than others and conveyed a greater sense of character, but if there is one area where diversity of technique (e.g. using things like cut off heads, different framing styles, different expressions, and the like) could carry the day, it was here.
Final Words
So that’s the basic overview. There had been times in the past I questioned some of the winners, the results leaving me scratching my head. But as I went through the process, I came to realize that for the most part, I think the judges do a good job of both representing a cross section of what’s going on in the industry, while staying true to the the nature of weddings. Is it a slam dunk? Not quite. But what would be a slam dunk for a publication as far-reaching as PDN? It’s a difficult task in a broad segment of the industry, and I think they fare respectably. I would describe the selections as contemporary, but they don’t push the limits, so very progressive work will probably be a tough sell. I’d guess there is some room for fine art approaches, and there’s definitely room for classicism if it’s presented freshly. There’s also a bit of a slant towards good communication, which is commendable. It may give a bit more of an edge to documentary work over editorial styles, though it’s hard to tell without seeing the submissions. But both stand good chances, as long as they’re well thought-out.
Leave a Reply