Location, Location, Location, Have you worked there before?

Have you worked there before?

Is the first of [ hopefully] many questions we intend to put on the blog that are intended to challenge commonly held notions regarding wedding photography. And provide something for you to muse over...

Ever since Gail and I got into wedding photography this is one question that kept cropping up everywhere- in bridal magazines, brides, grooms mums, dads, auntie's and uncle's....'Have you worked there before'?

Both of us have been working as professionals for nearly two decades and outside the realm of wedding photography we have never ever been asked that question by any of our employers- Have you worked there before? - Not a single picture editor- gallery curator- Arts council board- lecturer or fellow photographer- never. Whether you have worked in Hotel X two times or 200 times simply does not matter, what does matter is if you have a proven track record in your field and most importantly a definitive photographic style.

Anyway here is my two peneth....

A competent photographer is recognised by their style of photography, the same way as a Painter is recognised by their style of work - you can tell a Rembrandt from a Picasso from a Matisse etc by its content and not just by the signature at the bottom... Likewise when someone views a photographers images the photographer wants the photo to be identified as being 'theirs' through the photo's stylistic content. It is this originality in style that is the most important thing to look for when shopping around for a photographer.
I would argue this originality in style is not dependent on the location, in fact the location is not important at all in that respect.. whether photographing in Kathmandu or in the streets of London one hopes and certainly intends to reproduce and develop a specific style whatever the location, indeed the wider range of locations the better!
The one factor that could hinder a photographers style could be working at the same location too often. As it would be easy to slip into a working formula... Of course if possible one should have a good scout around a location before working there- but one thing that I feel could be detrimental to a photographer is if they have worked there too often- resulting in producing good work but not ' new' work, good but the same as last weeks ...

Give the same location to a photographer who is just starting out- say 3 years at college and 2 years out in the field- fresh eyes and a fresh perspective brought to the location- It could be just the thing for producing an original body of work.

In fact the above argument could be applied in a more general sense- A photographer that has been working on the same type of projects for twenty or thirty years in the same locations is far less likely to create something fresh and original [even though they know the location like the back of their hand]- in comparison to a relatively new photographer just starting out.

So what's it to be?
Out with the old and in with the new? Or stick to the tried and trusted?

Its something to think about...

And believe me when I say... The best compliment you can give to a photographer is to say ' Nobody else is doing it in this style '- A sure fire way to get a discount! :]