Loudoun County Wedding Venues

People often ask for my recommendations and opinions about various wedding venues in northern Virginia, more specifically in Loudoun County. At the risk of sounding like a wedding planner (which I am not), I usually try to limit my thoughts to those of a photographer. Most venues do a pretty good job with their catering and taking care of their guests. It really comes down to the style and size of the venue, and whether it fits your tastes and needs. But for me, I'm looking at it for the sake of the photos. Is it a good, fun location for capturing images, or is it ridiculously difficult? Is there a variety of places to take photos, or is it really limiting? My list below provides some of my own impressions of some of the venues I have been to over the years. Some I have shot numerous times; others only once. I should say here that my first impulse is to shoot outdoors in natural light, so most of my impressions have to do with the exterior possibilities. Except for the first one listed, there is no reason for the order they are listed.

* The Birkby House (Leesburg) This is my favorite location for shooting weddings. For such a small footprint in downtown Leesburg, the Birkby House has lots of variety: old brick, weathered wood, the Carriage House, and gardens to work with for images. Plus you have even more variety within a block or two of the venue. The grounds and house are kept in great shape. Guests can spread out, but they cannot wander off too far, so it is easy to pull together people for photos. It can be a little hairy shooting in front of the house due to cars flying by (in a 25 mph zone), but the backdrop of the house makes for nice photos. I really like Birkby; plus it is roughly a half mile from my home. Like anywhere, I would not want to shoot there every week; but I always look forward to weddings there.

* Whitehall (Bluemont) The first wedding I shot at Whitehall was 22 years ago. Since then they have added a very nice banquet hall to the original house, which really made Whitehall a much more desirable venue for a wedding. The grounds and the older house make a nice backdrop for a mansion look. Just about everything is white though, which limits some of the looks you can achieve, especially for a bride wearing white. But there are gravel/dirt drives and the tree hanging swing, and sometimes the old barn in the back (if cars are not in the way).

* Bluemont Vineyard (Bluemont) I shot the very first wedding at Bluemont Vineyard, back when it was officially under the name of Great Country Farm. The old stable area (the wedding site) can make for some nice images. The vineyard up above the stables adds more variety with some nice vista looks of the valley with vineyards in the foreground. From a photography perspective it can be a bit difficult shooting at Bluemont if it is really sunny out. There are no trees and very little shade. I feel like I've gotten some nice images there though. You just have to be patient and work with the lighting.

* Meadowkirk (Leesburg/Middleburg) This Presbyterian retreat center between Leesburg and Middleburg has lots of possibilities for weddings. I only have shot there once, and maybe it was because I had a beautiful bride who loved the camera, but I walked away from this venue really liking it. There are two main new buildings: a residential hall and a lodge/meeting area/dining hall. If you have a small wedding for mostly people out of the area, this could be a nice spot to consider. For photos there is the older original house and several outbuildings. Plus you have a number of old gravel drives. The grounds are not particularly manicured with gardens and flowers, but it is a pretty spot.

* Raspberry Plain (Leesburg) I would love to live at Raspberry Plain. It is a great location and a nice venue. I've done several weddings over the years here. The addition of the atrium hall really helped fill out this place. For photos there are several looks: the mansion look, some gardens, lots of greenery, and the atrium. Raspberry is big and spread out. Guests congregate all over the place, which can make finding people sometimes difficult. And their bathroom facilities are really limited. But it is an impressive venue with some good photo opportunities.

* Lightfoot (Leesburg) I guess Lightfoot is mostly just a reception site. I've never done a ceremony there, and I'm not sure they can handle an actual ceremony. The room is very nice. It can be tight, so I would recommend not to stretch its capacity to the limit. For photos you have downtown Leesburg, so if the ceremony is taking place in a ho-hum location, you have lots of photo possibilities surrounding Lightfoot.

* Algonkian Park (Sterling) Algonkian just recently added a much larger banquet hall to their meeting facility. For what it is, it is a really nice hall. From a photographic perspective, there isn't a whole lot to work with surrounding the facility. Lots of trees, but that is about it. The outside of the facility is not that picture worthy. The gazebo is okay, but again, not great. There are a few spots in the park down by the river that can work with paths and fields of wild flowers, but those are shots that depend greatly on the lighting. Algonkian works best if you can build in time to do additional photos either in downtown Leesburg or at nearby Claude Moore Park.

That's it for now. I'll try to update this list as other sites come to mind. This past year I shot a number of weddings outside the area, including at Pier 5 on the Baltimore Inner Harbor, at Westmoreland State Park along the Potomac, and at the Delfosse Vineyard south of Charlottesville. I enjoy the challenge of shooting at venues that are new to me; but I also enjoy revisiting the ones that I've been to oftentimes before. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.

Is There A Better Word Than "Terrorists"

For several years now I have wondered if we are doing ourselves a disservice using the word "terrorist" when describing terrorists. This isn't about calling terrorism for what it is, as opposed to calling it a "manmade disaster", which is what the current administration wishes to call it. Nor should we call it or treat it as something criminal. Terrorism is war, or at least a tactic used during war. We are at war with these people . . these terrorists. The rules of war are very different than the rules of the courtroom. I, for one, want us to treat these people as our enemies in war; not as someone who is entitled to protections under our Constitution.

My concern about the word "terrorist" is whether that is a word of honor for the terrorists. They might call themselves a "jihadist" rather than a terrorist, but the word "terrorist" might as well be "ninja warrior" or "bandit" in their world. It can be a word of endearment and romance, again in their world, not ours. So when we as Americans use the word "terrorist", in our minds we are referring to the scum of the earth, someone who has no regard for life. In the terrorist's world though, maybe the word "terrorist" is not an insult. Indeed, it might even be the opposite.

I've been looking, unsuccessfully, for a word that satisfies our need to call terrorists what they are, while at the same time adequately insulting and shaming the terrorist. It needs to be a word that the terrorist would never want to be called among his own people. I've heard it said that in prison there are two types of criminals even hard core criminals find disgusting: those who rape or kill kids, and those who are snitches for law enforcement. Those kind of criminals live in fear while in prison. This same kind of dishonor needs to be applied to terrorists. We on the outside already dishonor them. It's among their own people that they need to feel this dishonor them as well.

November 1922

For those who believe man over the past half century is responsible for today's global warming, this Washington Post article from November 1922 may serve as some interest. Let's see, 1922 was nearly 100 years ago. The only thing missing from this article were the dooms day "the world is going to end in five years" fear tactics a la Al Gore. Keep in mind that during the 1970's, a short 50 years after this article, scientists were universally concerned about our being in the midst of a new Ice Age. That shift in climate change was all accomplished without us wastefully spending trillions of dollars chasing a fantasy that we can control climate.

By the way, also check out this article about CO2 emissions, which "finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."