OK, you may have picked some of the duller images in the group, and a couple might be close to their expiration date, but what the images *are* are commercial, and targeted at their market.

The crowd scene is good of its kind, and also seems to meet the criteria for what is being called 'fresh' in today's media markets. The 'real' look so treasured on flickr is big in advertising right now, and so is driving editors and, of course, photoshelter.

Is this look big in weddings? More important, is this look big bucks in weddings?

I think PDN does a good job of recognizing a lot of cutting edge stuff... but also does a good job of recognizing current commercial reality.

Yes, I think the market is not particularly sophisticated, so I agree with you there. And I think PDN generally does quite a nice job negotiating the commercial and the cutting edge.

I WOULD like to see fresher wedding imagery; it seems to stay in the dark ages while everything else is slowly moving forward.... and just for the record, I LIKE the last two images, I don't know if you caught that. Although if by "crowd scene" you mean the blown-out color image with the bride double-chinned and obscured by petals, I must politely say: no way jose.

Cheers!
R

duh. But I'm biased. What is cool and fresh is not what my clients want to see. they want the same pics that are in the mags that were published 6 months ago (and shot way before that).

For the past few years the PDN "Top Knots" have been pretty dull/routine. But as Eric Hegwer said, clients don't want cool, fresh, cutting edge. And the ones who say they do, when it comes down to it, don't either.

They want lots and lots of pictures and they want 'em fast.

Anna Kuperberg is often terrific, and she's lucky to have clients that respect her work. Most clients would throw that photo back. . . .

I totally agree with the original comments. I love PDN, but this one smelled bad.

It is important to think of the client -- or who will care about the photograph over the long term ... that's gonna be the bride and groom, right? 'Cause no one wants to see wedding pix after six months ... maybe years later, the couple's kids. So in that sense, I think these are all great photos.

Rachel, you're not arguing they're technically bad (except for the edging out of the frame bride) are you? You're saying artistically they don't do it for you ... but wedding pix are in that realm of snapshots, IMO. Or bridging the gap between snapshots and professional pix.

I think b&gs want this kind of work -- where the picture doesn't outshine the subject. You're not thinking "what a great photograph" you're thinking "Bob and Sherry look great!" ...

Unless it's your second wedding. Maybe then you'd see the value of better pix!

um... I also found this one (and, actually, every Top Knots they've ever run!) pretty much a snoozefest. There are always 2-3 great shots but lots of really, really, really standard wedding photos. Which, yes, are marketable and may be what couples want - but then why call it the "new school of wedding photography" when it is the same old sh*t? I think they're pandering to a market, and I know that there is a ton of great, modern, and (gasp!) fresh wedding talent out there, so I'm kind of offended when there's a very standard shot of a pretty bouquet with f1.8 and saturated colors... actually, even that one was more interesting, but some of these are just SO dull.

I know I sound mega-bitter and grouchy, but I must tell you that I've placed in this contest before, and I keep entering it every year, though the one win didn't really do me any good... but even when I won I was kind of embarrassed to be amongst such bland company. it seems like almost 80% of it is just, "who cares?" with a few awesome and unique shots thrown in there... while most of them are at least of good technical quality, there are always a few that seem absolutely inexplicable as well.

just because something's commercial doesn't mean it has to be dull - and pdn's other contests usually feature really unique, fresh, and inspiring work. so I wish they would step this up a bit...

so, thanks for posting that - I really wanted to get this off of my chest!

wow... tough crowd...

But, I have to say, I mostly agree about the images they published. It's amazing to see what images make it into magazines for wedding stuff. Honestly, the best work is not being published.

When submitting to wedding magazines in general, they don't want the edgy stuff that's pushing the limits in the wedding market today. They want clean and simple (what most might call flat out boring) pictures.

I think we can see a bit of this reflected in PDN's Top Knots.

I will say, there are some stand-out photographers represented in the Top Knots and some great pictures in there.

I do think if they ran it as less of a contest and more of a "discovering the talent who's pushing the limits" and then featuring one or two or even three leading edge photographers with amazing imagery it would solve a ton of these problems.

But then again, what do I know... I'm just a wedding photographer in a an industry that commercial shooters view as just snap shots. That's really too bad, but I can't really argue with it when top knots picks some of the photos they do.

while i do agree that some of the images we have seen over and over (i.e. the shoe, bride's and groom's coming out of churches with rose petals, etc. as well as some of the other typical getting ready shots, i'm not quite sure why you included the kid getting ready above? i thought that picture was one of the better in that category. at least it was a little bit different.

A couple of comments Rachel: As a woman and a photographer, I was surprised to see that the only photographs you posted were women's. I was also surprised that out of all of the photographs that won, you chose those 3 when I thought that some of them were far less interesting images. In any case, weddings are not about the photographer and his work...they are about the couples. I guarantee you that the clients of those photographers loved each of those images and isn't that the point? I understand that many photographers stretch the boundaries when it comes to their portraiture but a moment captured is a moment captured. The joy of a couple exiting the church or the face of a child not thrilled to be in the wedding. Those were not posed shots. If you want to be critical of the portrait section or details that is one thing, but realistically how can you be so critical of candids? They may be boring, but let's face it--there are things that just happen consistently during the wedding day which is why although you may see a different angle or twist, you're basically going to be looking at similar images.

Hey Sara-

I totally didn't discriminate about male/female photographers, I literally just pulled images from the contest that struck me immediately as rather lackluster. But, when you say:

"In any case, weddings are not about the photographer and his work...they are about the couples."

THIS contest is about the photographers, not those couples. Nor is it about the taste level of the couples. It's about the taste level of the editors at PDN, who clearly must also abide the market and make a call between good photography and commercial viability. And I understand that's tricky. All I'm saying is that I feel this year they fell a bit short of the mark on the "good photography" side.

And I have no problems with a candid shot, quite the opposite. But there's a difference between a good candid and a bad candid.

Thanks for writing in.

R

and ps. i also shoot weddings from time to time, god help me. so i know they are hard. if you all want to express your horror at MY shots, I absolutely welcome the slaughter. drink up!

www.birdinthehandweddings.com

You are right about this being a contest and not about the couples. And you are also right when you say it's about the taste level of the judges. What you think is not good the judges thought were great. That's what makes the world go round. I completely disagree with your assessment that the photos you selected as bad were bad photographs. I'm quite sure that if you look at all of the photographs that won, you will find far more offensive than these. But really, why is that necessary? Wedding photographers have a hard enough time trying to be creative with their portraiture. When the candid moments they capture are going to be critized as well, what is the point? I have to confess quite frankly that I personally laughed when I saw the picture of the kid, I thought it was great. I thought less of the picture that won best in the category or many of the others (although I did like one or two from that bunch). What determines a "good" candid? I always thought that if it evoked some emotion, laughter or tears, that that alone would constitute a good candid. Again, I'm a little biased as this is what I do for my bread and butter. And, my opinion is just my opinion. As is yours.

You're totally right that I could have found more offensive images. That's true. I think we just disagree about these images in particular. But I absolutely respect how hard it is to be a wedding photographer. My comment was more that I thought PDN dropped the ball this year. And if you put yourself in a contest, you put yourself up for speculation. So I was speculating. I didn't intend to be nasty.

Looks like those are 'good' wedding photos and… that's it.

Meanwhile, I'm often thrilled by some of the works being shown on this one: http://www.wpja.com/.

As one of the winners, while it's great to be selected, and I don't want to be unappreciative, I've also had the same impression with this particular contest. Some really great, unique shots mixed with some...duds.

I think there are a couple of things happening with this particular contest.

1. Some of the category winners are more recognized names in wedding photography circles (re: wedding magazine editors..see point 2). I think that gave them a bit of an advantage in some ways, even though their images were not exactly groundbreaking.

2. When you look at the list of judges, almost all of them are photo editors at bridal magazines (the knot, brides, etc). I don't think the judges really had an eye for "new" or "fresh" but rather what they would publish in their commercial magazines. I think PDN would do well to mix up the judging panel with at least a couple non-wedding industry type folks who could be more objective about photography aesthetics.

3. When you submit to Top Knots you can see the other submissions on the contest website. I think there were a lot of fantastic images from many photographers that got passed over for whatever reasons. In some cases is almost strange to see which ones ultimately get chosen from the pack.

4. I know wedding photographers tend to be looked down upon by others, but I have to say there are many people out there doing absolutely amazing work. Shooting weddings is not easy, and it can be challenging to be extraordinarily creative when you're under the gun for 6 to 12 hours, constantly documenting the day to meet your client's expectations/needs, while at the same time having an eye for shooting beyond the generic stuff.

You often don't even see some of the best photographers even entering these kind of contests. There are many wedding photographers doing really interesting and fresh work these days, but I think PDN usually is just scratching the surface with some of the better selections.
I think the lack of diversity with the judges is the issue, rather than a lack of great work submitted by photogs.

5. I hate the lens flair / overwhelming backlight trend this year. I cringe when I see judges selecting those images! Also, the picture of the little boy is cute, but there are so many technical problems with the blown out whites and what appears to be too much sharpening to "save" an out of focus image. I know some great shots are not always perfect, but I'm confident there were probably 100s of better executed "cute kids" shots submitted that got passed over for this one that was selected. Just my personal rant on that.

Great blog!