We all do it. We all want to stand out from the crowd. There's a hunger for it, and we're searching for better ways to describe ourselves, to elevate ourselves above the rest. We need to be seen, we want to be part of the universal and we need to be exclusive.

Photography is a ubiquitous art. It is very easy to create a photograph, and even one that is technically very good. The tools are readily available. To be able to tell a story in one picture, or a collection of pictures, or even a whole body of work, takes a bit of talent, a bit of patience, a lot of practice, and a way of looking and seeing that can't necessarily be bought. I mean to make pictures that aren't ordinary and perhaps even extraordinary.

Before I rant on, I'd like to impress upon you this caveat: {Yes, I'm aware that my own website is probably riddled with examples of the following, but I'm trying to simplify my message as much as possible, and I'm trying to cut out the B.S all the time. I can't say I'll always be able to achieve this!}

It's been driving me nuts lately how some very good photographers are having to explain themselves when the pictures should really do the talking. Having to define ourselves with fluffy and endearing tags seems to me to only pigeon hole, or worse, proclaim the photographer as elitist and above their audience.

"I'm a reportage wedding photographer. My pictures are classic and contemporary and timeless and modern. I shoot weddings in a photo-journalistic style, and if you're looking for Fine Art, then I'm your man"

It's all buzz and noise and drives the notion that, for example, a 'Reportage photographer' might be more dynamic, more in the here and now, than say, a 'Photographer'. What is a reportage photographer. Perhaps the idea of a journalist, freelancing through war torn and ravaged cities to get the exclusive, to bring you the news springs to mind. A wedding photographer could maybe use this metaphor to express how he or she will get to the nitty gritty real stuff of your wedding. The way it all happened, no pretence, just good honest, authentic real stuff. To be there to report on the drama of the wedding... Here's the definition:

Quote: Collins online dictionary.

reportage (rɪˈpɔːtɪdʒ;ˌrəpɔːˈtɑːʒ)

Definitions noun

the act or process of reporting news or other events of general interest a journalist's style of reporting a technique of documentary film or photo journalism that tells a story entirely through pictures

...Not really that glamorous. In fact, surely any wedding photography that aims to tell the story of the wedding is in fact reportage? That's fine, but why throw this around as if it where of greater meaning? Are people really searching for reportage photographers? You could easily argue that a snapshot photographer is telling the story of a wedding day through a sequence of pictures, so why not that? A lot of people I've met associate reportage photography as simply black and white photography - a style that evokes quick, candid, of the moment photography. Un-rehearsed and improvised.

The definition is unnecessary and it interests me how some photographers feel the need to claim ownership of such descriptive terms. I concede that when showcasing your wedding photography on a website you might not want to define yourself as a landscape photographer, for example, but maybe 'Wedding Photographer' is enough. It's nothing to be afraid of.