After concentrating on learning about fashion and celebrity portraiture for the past 18 months, I've been doing some research on wedding photography and traditional formal portraiture. (I've got to start making some money!)(posted 8760 days ago)However, I'm really surprised at just how different the stylistics of these fields are. I've always believed that a firm understanding of fundamentals is important, but what is considered fundamental for formal wedding portraiture is - to my eye - incredibly artificial and dated looking.
For example, I've been looking at the examples on Monte Zucker and Gary Bernstein's www.Zuga.net (under free lessons). Monte is very good at quantifying traditional posing techniques - but they still look forced and artificial. He's much better with location shots. Meanwhile, Bernstein apparently hasn't taken a picture since the mid 1980s - and it shows (and not just in the bad hairstyles and out-of-date actors in his examples). Finally, they've just added a section by Joe Zeltsman (who may be several decades behind Bernstein). He's got some good basic information, but I don't think the results would make very many people immersed in today's culture happy. Contrast them with The Art of Portrait Photography by Michael Grecco. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0936262850/qid=956685050/sr=1-6/002-2099742-1765837)
I'm hoping that there will be a market for bringing wedding and formal portraiture into the new millenium.