Hey-

A buddy of mine was just accepted into the WPJA ----

Is it a big deal? How strict are they with entrants? I've always had a funny philosophy on clubs like that--- help correct my false traditions!

Anyone offer a perspective???


Eric

Uh oh...

nuts.

can't wait to watch this thread. sorry not to anwser your post.

Eric, I would recommend doing a search for 'WPJA' here on OSP.

Like this


No harm in the question, it just tends to polarize some folks around here.

Never applied, don't know why I would really.

I would rather eat that can of worms than have this argument again. Does anyone have any salt?

Responses like this just feed the frenzy and only *ask* for flames to break out.

WPJA is controversial, yes. I think it's a good organization, but I think it's poorly run by someone who makes business issues personal.

I will say that if you are a member, be VERY careful about what you say about the organization or the owner in public if you want to remain a member. There is no freedom of speech for WPJA members.

Karen

No, seriously, I've asked this question in another thread:

"Since PDN announced that wedding 'photojournalism' is an outdated term (I agree) -- the new and more appropriate one is 'editorial style' photography -- and, since everyone does this style of photography now, then isn't WPJA a rather irrelevant acronym and differentiation?"

Maybe I should start an organization called "WPWC" (Wedding Photographers With Cameras).

Gosh, I'm being cynical again. I guess I was just never a "joiner."

There's a forest fire happening right now near my parents house in Wenatchee. Anyone want to go shoot it with me?

PDN can "announce" whatever they want. As long as brides are still asking for it, then it's not outdated.

As far as I'm concerned, the dress hanging in front of a window is "outdated" too ... but that's because I've seen it and shot it 10 dozen times. The bride who is getting married this weekend hasn't - and when she has, it hasn't been *her* dress in the image.

Same principle

K

I think you misunderstood. I'm saying the TERM is outdated, not the style (people are just calling it something else more and more these days). Would you disagree that most people and photographers are looking for what used to be called PJ, and now is just considered contemporary wedding photography?

Sorry if it offends you that PJ photographers are the norm now, and not special JUST 'cause they do this style of photography.

Eddie? What used to be called PJ??? Photojournalism is documentary photography. That's all. If you fake it, it's not photojournalism. You can call it whatever you want. I'm sure the semantics will change. The reason the brides love it is because it's real. Sure, they love some fun set up stuff. But photojournalism is really ruling the style nowadays. When it stops, I'll go back to newspaper work.

I think many are blurring the lines between photojournalism and traditional photography, creating stage portraits that don't look staged. But I think there's definitely a place for true documentary photographers and it's not at all an outdated term.

Also, there's a big difference between those who do candids and those who do photojournalism; those who do photojournalism well really tell stories within their images, whereas lots of candids are simply snippets of the story (if that makes any sense).

well said, phil.

Quick edit... Eddie, I don't think my work is special JUST because I do this kind of photography. I freely admit I do some set up stuff. But my work is predominantly documentary-style.

"Photojournalism is documentary photography" which is to say it can have more than one term applied to it, correct? That is my only point.

Think about it. Photojournalism is a term coined long before it was applied to a type of wedding photography. I have not issue with any of this. What I'm trying to say is it seems like an outdated "term" for a totally in-style genre. Call it whatever you like, it's the type of wedding photography that is predominate making everything not "PJ" kind of obscure.

You can complicate the situation with technicalities and semantics, but we're talking about the same thing with slight variances -- the contemporary style of wedding coverage.

So,

1) The acronym WPJA is somewhat limiting, as you yourself say that PJ can also be called by another name. And that could be "Documentary Style" or "Editorial Style" or whatever. I'm just saying why limit it to one term.

2) The whole idea of being a member of an organization that differentiates itself in this way is to, in turn, show that you have differentiated yourself from those who do not do this kind of photography. I'm just hard-pressed to see who doesn't do "PJ" -- although I'm sure if I try, I'd find someone. And I'm sure if we looked for the technical nuances to what defines whatever WPJA says IS true PJ, we could figure a way that some photographers who claim to do pure PJ, do in fact not. But who cares?

Again, just not a big "joiner" here. Sorry to offend anyone who really wants to have the WPJA logo or designation for whatever reason.

My brides just call up and say, "I want your style of photography for my wedding." That's good enough for me.

Uh ... who said I was offended? I was shooting "PJ" weddings 16 years ago when I first started shooting. Now I don't call it that because I feel the term itself is overused (not outdated) by people who don't know what PJ really is. But I"m not offended.

Karen

My mistake.

ok... back to the topic at hand. WPJA sucks and is a complete joke of an association. ooops... did I say that out loud?

Sorry, Eddie, I have to disagree that all wedding photographers were created equal. There are people who tell brides they shoot photojournalistic pictures without having an ounce of real skill shooting storytelling images. That's why WPJA has been and will remain relevant.

If you look at the top WPJA contest winners... Carlo Carletti, Matt McGraw http://www.mattmcgrawphotography.com, Huy at http://www.f8studio.com , Chris and kathleen Perez http://www.azulphotography.com ... these folks are consistently making unique and amazing photographs. To say that EVERYONE is shooting in the exact same way is kind of insulting.

What's wrong with setting some standards?

Half of my brides this year have found me on WPJA.

It is my biggest source of bookings.

There's just a slight twisting of my words going on here. I should be more careful when using a figure of speech like "everyone." What I meant to say (and what I think I've stated a couple times in this thread already) is that most people consider PJ the contemporary style, the predominant style, of coverage.

However, if WPJA or anyone else wants to keep the standards (that they adhere to) to a high level, that's great. I certainly have no argument against high standards. I don't necessarily want a particular association setting my standards for me, but I might not be able to escape that forever, I guess. I don't know much about them, but maybe the WPPI also has some set of standards or guidelines I'd have to follow if I join them.

So, I'm cool with all of that, if you are. I'm just not sure why I got jumped on so hard just because I thought the WPJA might not be necessary, and that their acronmym might need to be changed?

If you think it's necessary to have and belong to the WPJA or anyone else, or even if you just think it's beneficial, great. I guess the point here is "don't mess with the WPJA."

Good to know.

Your first quote above is exactly WHY an organization helps (I won't say "is needed" because need is subjective) to maintain a separation. PJ as a phrase has become so bastardized that it no longer holds any meaning for a great many people. An organization that promotes a standardization of the term is helpful to both the consumer and the photographer.

Karen

Okay, I've finally looked over the WPJA site with an open mind fully aware that many people here take it very seriously (one way or another). You have your opinions, and I have mine. I'm just sharing. This is fun.

First let me say where I'm coming from:

• Over 40 years old
• Been shooting professionally (making money) since before HS
• Not a purist by any means
• Bit of a rebel who doesn't like too many rules or restrictions
• Buys, joins, and commits only after very careful consideration
• Pretty good BS meter
• No. I havent been rejected by the WPJA (nor applied)

Now, it's probably pretty easy to see how and why I have the viewpoints I do on such things (like anyone cares by now, I know). But here are some thoughts:

1) The WPJA has a mission statement on their site that says in part: "represents professional photographers skilled in the documentation of weddings and events in a candid, unobtrusive style." I looked for the in-depth WPJA definition of "wedding photojournalism" that Karen says has been bastardized and is in need of clarification by such an organization. Couldn't find it. But, if there are photographers out there using the term PJ, and documenting weddings in a candid, onobtrusive style, I suppose they're okay with Karen.

UPDATE: Okay I did also find where it says, you can't possibly be a wedding photojournalist if you also do an extensive amount of portraiture. Good to know.

2) This page on their site: http://www.wpja.com/for_the_photographer/j...a_organization/

It's just ridiculous. Just the thought of detailing, one-by-one, the reasons it seems so ridiculous to me is an exhausting thought. If you've never read that page (non-members), then please do so if you have time to waste and would like to agree or disagree. I'm sorry, I just find myself laughing when I read that.

3) Standards, etc.: Someone named Christopher Hartt wrote on PHoto.net that "A local photographer here in Dallas that I'm familiar with shot 1 - that's right 1 wedding, put the pics on a website, applied to the WPJA and was accepted. He has a total of 3 months experience owning an SLR and proudly lists WPJA and PPA 'credentials.'"

Now, I'm gonna say, this could be pure fabrication from a disgruntled person who didn't get into the club. Or, maybe it's a true story. I don't know, be I've heard similar things on OSP, I think.

Aw, heck, I'll admit this shouldn't even make it on my list because I can't substantiate it, and it's not even an opinion of mine. Let's just say, if it is true, it belongs on this list as a "hmm?" item. If it is not true, it shouldn't be here at all. I'm not going to research it, if you care, you do it

4) Finally, get over it. It's weird when someone makes a little observation and gets this kind of reaction. We're all nice people here, but some of you seem like you've been programmed to defend to the death an organization that others have a great disdain for.

Me, I'm in the middle. I don't love 'em or hate 'em. And I'll bet you WPJA people all shoot Nikon! I kid, I kid!!

Take care all.

Quite simply, I'd say the WPJA is a good organization to join.

I say this because I get lots of bookings from the WPJA. In fact, I booked a 2008 bride who found me there just this afternoon. I might speak differently if i was involved in their forums/community, but I'm not.

Nor do I worry too much what the dude who runs the place does or doesn't say or do. I have no idea who he is or what he stands for, except for snippets I've read in threads like this.

My listing there has increased my web traffic. Brides like it. The work displayed by WPJA contest winners is inspiring, sometimes totally breathtaking. I recommend everyone who thinks they are a "photojournalist" or whatever word you want to use for photo-storyteller to apply, and pay the money if they're accepted because it will pay off in the long run with more bookings.

Is this the guy you're talking about???
http://www.harttphoto.com/portfolios.htm

I don't know, but if it is, I must admit, that has hilarious implications!

Thanks, Shane.

Totally off topic... Are you seriously over 40? You don't look it!

Turning 42 this year. And yes, that is a photo shot this year. With the sunglasses off, and just after a wedding, I probably look at least 35!

Wow-




Sorry to ignite the fires! I had no idea of the knee-jerkk reaction that my question would cause. I really appreciate all the thoughts and ideas - I need to do some research now and really own an opinion.

Thanks for all the thoughts and posts - it really does help me a ton!

Eric

Unlike Eddie, I have direct, personal experience with the WPJA. I book about 30% of my weddings each year directly through them. The brides who find me through the WPJA usually have a solid understanding of "wedding photojournalism" -- they aren't expecting to pose for everything throughout the entire day, and they're comfortable with me documenting their entire wedding experience. I have networked with some great photographers through the WPJA (including Shane Snider and Karen Simmons), and become a better person and photographer because of it.

The WPJA has its flaws, but I find it a worthwhile organization on several levels. If you feel that your work is predominantly "storytelling" in style, then I would highly recommend that you apply.

I just picked up the People magazine weddings issue...looks like the WPJA got some OSP photographer images placed in there -- which is a good thing, right?

Congrats to those of you who have had success with the WPJA.

Wait 'til you see the Brides Magazine fall edition...

Are you in there? Cool!

Unlike Anne, I have no direct, personal experience with the WPJA. I book all my weddings without them. The brides who find me via any other source have an understanding of my style by looking at my portfolio & blog, and could probably care less about a "standardization" of any genre. I consult with them so they have a solid understanding about how I work and what I will do for them.

And I will never let any organization dictate to me what percentage of a particular kind of photograph I can, or can't, have on my website.

I totally understand the benefits you have from being a member. You've made them clear. So, I think that you have made the right choice for you. But, it isn't the right choice for everyone.

Totally agree, here. To each his/her own.

Wow...I thought you were in your 20's......

So how does one best say, "ENOUGH!" I really didn't mean to start a fight. My buddy was just accepted and is doing back flips and I'm not sure how excited I should be for him. I'm excited for him - but I'm trying to get a true measure on how much of an accomplishment it really is. Sounds like it's a strengent process; therefore, I am going to strech out and do backflips with him!



I do appreciate all the posts and time!

Eric

Believe it or not, the socially acceptable (and fun!) way to say "enough" on OSP is....

with the COW BELL!!!


you need to go find a picture of a cow, and a picture of a bell....and post them. cowbell is our universal symbol for "time out". it has something to do with an SNL skit.