Why You Might Love an Unplugged Wedding (your wedding photographer might too)

A Kent and London/south east wedding photographer discusses the merits of having an unplugged wedding ceremony.

You’ve spent months (or longer!) planning your wedding, making sure every detail is just right. When the big day finally arrives, you want your guests to be truly there with you—soaking in every heartfelt moment, not watching it through a phone screen. That’s why more and more couples are choosing to have an unplugged ceremony, where guests put away their devices and just enjoy the experience.

Present and connected - no phones in sight. Photo by Jonathan Wright - Wright & Oistad Wedding Photography

The Magic of Being Present

Think about it—when guests aren’t distracted by taking photos or sneaking a peek at their notifications, your ceremony instantly becomes more intimate. Everyone is focused on you, the love you share, and the once-in-a-lifetime moment happening right in front of them.

Not to mention, when your guests are fully present, you get to see their real reactions—the happy tears, the proud smiles, and maybe even your grandma squeezing your grandpa’s hand. Those are the moments that make a wedding unforgettable.

And from a photographer’s perspective? An unplugged ceremony means no phones in the air blocking the perfect shot of your first kiss, no flashes interfering with the lighting, and no accidental photobombs from well-meaning guests trying to snap their own pictures. You’ve hired a professional to capture every beautiful detail—so why not let them do what they do best?

You only need one wedding photographer! This sign is a great example of how to communicate this request to your guests.

How to Make It Happen

If you love the idea of an unplugged ceremony, the key is to communicate it clearly—and more than once! Here are a few ways to let your guests know:

• Mention it early. Add a note to your save-the-dates, invitations, and wedding website.

• Put up a friendly sign. Something fun like, “We promise the pros will get the best shots—please keep your phones tucked away and enjoy the moment with us!”

• Have your officiant announce it. A quick reminder before the ceremony starts helps ensure everyone is on board. No one messes with the officiant.

You don’t have to go completely tech-free for the whole day - if there are no selfies are you really even married? Many couples opt for an unplugged ceremony and then encourage guests to take photos and share them during the reception. That way, you get the best of both worlds—pure, undistracted emotion during your vows and tons of fun, candid moments afterward.

You do you

We're all different. If you choose NOT to have an unplugged ceremony, that's absolutely fine. I really mean it. You may well have photos of guests taking photos and filming, and they may stand up and get in the way of your photographer capturing key moments. It does happen: uncle Phil leans out into the aisle with his iPad to take a photo during your first kiss, ruining your photographer's photo ('ruining' is subjective of course). If that possibility is ok with you, there's nothing to worry about. If that would bother you, going unplugged might be the way.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, an unplugged ceremony is all about connection—between you, your partner, and the people who mean the most to you. And in a world where we’re always plugged in, taking a moment to slow down and be present is a pretty special thing. It’s pretty much a gift to your guests too.

Would you consider going unplugged for your wedding? Let’s chat about how we can create a stress-free, beautifully documented day that you’ll cherish forever.

What is editorial wedding photography?

Blog: What is Editorial Wedding Photography?

I’m going to discuss what editorial wedding photography actually IS, how it’s done, what it’s NOT, and briefly discuss the confusion and misunderstandings of it within the wedding photography industry.

In 2025, ‘editorial wedding photography’, the ‘editorial look’ and so on, are kinda buzzy words in the marketing of wedding photography. Clients, and often brides, have seen the word and some great-looking photography and thought (perfectly reasonably) ‘I like that’. But a lot of what’s labelled as editorial is not editorial at all.

‘Editorial’ refers to material created, commissioned or prepared, for publication. Editorial PHOTOGRAPHY is typically photos taken to accompany text - for example a portrait of an actor accompanying an interview for a magazine. Sometimes, the photos are published with no text. Already this description doesn’t quite fit most wedding photography. If there’s no article about the wedding, and the photos aren’t going into a publication, what’s editorial about this wedding photography?

It’s confusing because there are a few photographic techniques that are associated with editorial photography - and they’re not particularly linked to true editorial photography:

Direct Flash wedding photography

Is this the editorial wedding photographer look?

Here’s how I feel about direct flash. It can look fantastic and it can look terrible. The flash is on top of the camera, pointing straight at the subject and creates a hard, typically unflattering light. It can look good if you’re good-looking like Henry and Georgia above, you know how to pose, and the background and everything else is cool/interesting. But the hard light from direct flash is the direct opposite of the soft light most people are hoping for (eg golden hour etc), and we like soft light because it’s flattering on normal people and typically associated with love, romance, etc. I think when people see this type of image that sometimes they love the image and want to look like that, but it’s important to remember that the direct flash look is as much about the subject (the person/people/couple), and the setting as it is a lighting technique.

Upsides of direct flash: it’s easy. It really isn’t hard at all - this look became a thing in the first place because it looked a bit like those disposable film cameras with a flash (a reaction against the very technical fashion photography that was en vogue at the time) for a while. Another bonus: it can be used outside, with no additional equipment (light stands etc). It can have a fun, gritty, quality and a certain honesty to it.

Downsides of direct flash: other than not being very flattering for most people, you’re getting blasted by a flash every time the photographer takes a photo. Because weddings are unscripted, modern wedding photography typically involves taking a LOT of photos - thousands - and choosing the best. That’s a lot of flashing. The red-carpet/paparazzi experience is fun for a bit, and then very, very tiring, on both couple and guests.

Blurry wedding photos

The next ’editorial wedding photography’ trope is blurry photos. Usually this created by using a slow shutter speed and/or camera movement, but sometime it’s created by being out of focus. Since these are all things that are sometimes technical ‘mistakes’ again it’s pretty easy to do this. I quite like a few blurry photos, it makes me all nostalgic and can be super evocative. Also if there’s movement in the scene it can help tell a story.

The ‘Dutch Angle’

In other words, wonky wedding photos. Sometimes REALLY wonky. Horizons going diagonally across the screen, that sort of thing. I don’t really do this so I had to make one wonky in post (below).Sometimes the couples’ heads are cut off. For me, this is an edgy, fringe technique that’s become popular in the last few years… but I think it’s going to die out and some of those photos are going to look dated. In cinematography, the Dutch angle is used to create an unsettled feeling which to me is at odds with what a wedding is all about. It’s a love story, not a horror.

Wonky wedding photos… it’s a pass from me on this one.

Black and white wedding photography

And finally, BW, and film grain. As a portrait photographer I LOVE black and white and the film look. This type of photography can be spectacular and beautiful and has that timeless feeling about it. But this way of editing can hide a multitude of sins - it can make bad photos look quite good. Also if the colours are bad/ugly, it’s a great way of saving a photo.

So those are the three main features of what is (mis)understood to be the editorial wedding photography look. Hold on though! Time to get excited! You can COMBINE all of these! Wonky, blurry, direct flash, grainy black and white photos. It’s a vibe. It can definitely be done really nicely and I’m not anti- these things (except maybe the dutch angle) but in SOME cases, this style of photography exists in place of full set of photography skills. Does it matter? I don’t know.

Photo by Nick Knight

Culturally, this is all a hangover from what happened in in fashion photography in the 90s. Fashion photography was a kind of virtuosic, technical genre with people like Nick Knight with these incredible skills, and then as a kind of statement or reaction to that, Jurgen Teller started using compact cameras and getting this gritty look.

David and Victoria Beckham. Photo by Jurgen Teller

There’s no right or wrong about this or its influence on wedding photography, but it’s getting these photos is not that hard. For that reason I would encourage a degree of caution when considering photographers whose portfolio is mostly like this and here’s why: for a lot of the day this style doesn’t really work. From a technical perspective, wedding photography is expensive because it’s really hard - difficult light, non-professional subjects, a lack of control over positioning, a lack of control over ANYTHING MUCH… Dark churches. Gloomy halls. Bad weather. Crucial family photos in difficult conditions against the clock. Good technique and high skill levels are required to document the day in a way that looks good.

If we refer back to our definition of editorial photography we can see that not much of this is actually anything to do with editorial. Motion-blurred photos aside there’s nothing particularly story-telling-y about any of these approaches that doesn’t apply equally to more typical wedding photography, and this is where labelling these approaches as ‘editorial’ is questionable.

There’s one thing left to cover.

If editorial wedding photography is not these techniques, what IS it really?

It’s storytelling. It’s environmental portraits. A record of the relationship between photographer and subject. This last one might be the nature of the photographer on the day influencing the subject - eg getting great Uncle Jack to give that cheeky thumbs up from his seat just before the ceremony. People skills are everything. Editorial wedding photography for me is this: imagery directed by the photographer with some sort of concept in mind.

This is now more of a collaboration between photographer and subject (ie the brides, grooms, and guests), and THIS is why the PERSON you book needs to be a good fit for you on your wedding day. The people at the wedding, including you the couple, will be to some degree affected by the photographer so before you book a wedding photographer, TALK to them, let them talk to you, and see how you feel with them. It’s like a taxi driver - you could get a lovely one who shows you the landmarks and makes the journey interesting and fun, or you could get someone who leaves you in peace, or you could get one who seems like he doesn’t want to be there. Now imagine there were photos of you in the back of the taxi during your journeys with these three different drivers. How different would they be? Those photos are the story of the interaction between the taxi driver and you. Of course your wedding photos are about you but they will also to some extent contain some info about how you got along with your wedding photographer. Whether you’re after ‘the editorial look’ or wanting to really create some meaningful photos, editorial wedding photography is about more than just blurry, wonky, flash photos.

NB. Reading this back it sounds like I’m a bit critical of editorial wedding photography. I’m not - my style is pretty editorial and my favourite portrait photographer Harry Borden shoots specifically for editorial. It’s just good to talk about what it is and what it isn’t!

NBii. You might be thinking that editorial is completely incompatible with documentary wedding photography. I have thoughts.

A Trinity Buoy Wharf Wedding

Trinity Buoy Wharf has got to be up there with the most interesting and unusual London wedding venues I’ve been to. Opposite the Millennium Dome and bang in the middle of the old docks it’s partially pedestrianised (particularly at weekends) so is remarkably free from traffic and road noise - plus of course you’ve got the Thames right there and whatever that intangible vibe is that you get from being by a body of water. The wharf itself is classic ‘gentrified east London’ with the old London Stock brick buildings, brightly coloured repurposed shipping containers and random nautical (and non-nautical) artefacts, so it’s absolutely packed with dock-related imagery which make great backdrops for wedding photos, not least the iconic lighthouse (more on that below).

Something to consider with a London wedding - and your wedding photography - is that your chances or a maxed-out low sun golden hour for couple portraits are reduced - mainly by buildings. However, being on the river means there’s a lot more horizon to play with, depending on the time of year. If golden hour-type wedding photos are important to you it would be worth building in or allowing time for your photographer (hopefully me) to grab you for 15 minutes when the light is right. I sometimes use a sun-tracking app to predict the path of the sun and when it might poke between buildings or be in a good spot…

Back to the morning for a second: Miriam and Joe had a large, Jewish wedding. It was my first Jewish wedding and wow… nothing had prepared me for the absolute scenes that unfolded here. Early in the day they had their first look - a chance for the couple to meet in their wedding dress and suit, spend a bit of time together in the blazing London summer sun, and of course, get some photos. We explored the lanes behind the venue in order to avoid the arriving guests.

M&J returned inside for final prep and I grabbed some guest candids. On this occasion at least the venue is split into two areas - the actual dock - a large open space on the riverside - and the main building which was essentially a repurposed warehouse - very cool and very flexible. There are of course multiple additional rooms that can be used for changing, storage, etc. In fact this 100+ guest wedding only used one of the two large halls.

Out came the Chuppah, then Joe and his parents, and finally Miriam with her parents. The ceremony was beautiful, with the traditional blessings, songs, the symbolic circling of the groom by the bride, and the breaking of the glass.

In contrast to the rather serious religious event that is the ceremony, the wedding feast was a fun, lively celebration for the couple. Man, it was amazing! These special, traditional Jewish wedding dances were a ball to photograph.

Miriam and Joe wanted photos on the lighthouse so keys were obtained and steps ascended - what a unique wedding portrait. Speeches followed in the main space and as the sun went down guests had the option to step outside for some fresh air, or to take in the views of the Thames at dusk.

The dancefloor would be fun for the rest of the night. I stayed late, took way too many photos, but caught some wonderful moments. My favourite was the unprompted limbo - a guest was on crutches and gamely offered one as a limbo bar, with the bride, groom, and several guests seeing how low they could go. I was buzzing taking these, the dancefloor was alive with laughter, music, and feelings of liberation and celebration. I’m smiling as a remember it several months later!