Charlotte & Ernie

I photographed a wedding yesterday. It was a beautiful day and everything seemed to go fine all around. One of the things I particularly appreciated was that Charlotte and Ernie decided they wanted to do as many photos prior to the ceremony, including the ones of the two of them together. My experience has always been that when couples opt to do it this way they are extremely happy with their decision. Not only are they allowing more time to spend with their guests, but they are also much, much more relaxed throughout the day. All the tension of seeing each other is over. Charlotte and Ernie built in a time for when they would first see each other and got to spend several minutes alone (well okay, I was there photographing them, including the image above) before embarking on the photography duties.

I don't push couples either way on when and how their photo session should go, but I do let them know that I am a big fan of doing everything prior to the ceremony. If there is a chance of rain later in the day, it is good to know you got the photography in and over with before that rain comes. If you are concerned about your guests waiting too long after the ceremony, doing all the shots before the ceremony greatly reduces that time.

The day before this wedding I was driving through Leesburg and saw a wedding couple on the sidewalk doing their photos after their ceremony. I knew it was after the ceremony because when I drove by the reception site I saw the guests milling around. I thought to myself that it seems strange to invite all these family and friends to a ceremony and reception, but then you are spending a significant amount of time away from them, doing something that could have been done earlier when the guests were not around. And it seems strange to do these important photos of the couple during a time that is usually rushed and you just want to be with your guests.

I would encourage wedding couples to seriously consider having all their photos done prior to the ceremony. I know it's not traditional to do it this way (I would say about 40% of my weddings do their photos prior to the ceremony), but I'm not quite sure what the point of this tradition is in the first place. You can have that moment of first seeing each other, and I believe that time when you see the bride coming down the aisle will still be magical, simply because of the moment.

Faith: the word

I've been thinking a lot lately about the word "faith". Like the words "tolerance" and "change", I think people casually throw them around assuming that everyone is in agreement as to what is meant by the word. Most everyone wants change to take place, but not everyone is in agreement as to what that change should look like. So to just toss out that word "change"may sound great, but it doesn't really tell us anything until it is defined in detail so people can either say yes or no to it. Once that is done the consensus call for change becomes much less than consensus as people say "I want change, but I don't want your brand of change". The same is true with faith.

Politicians are great for throwing out the word "faith", especially when it comes to campaigning. People in general talk about how important faith is in their life. But oftentimes the farthest they go in a speech or in their day to day talking is to just say the word "faith" and assume everyone knows what they are talking about. But faith means different things to different people, and the object of their faith may be very different than what you might presume. Faith must have an object. For many people that would be God, for others it might be a person or a group, it could even be an idea or a tree. I just wish people would identify the object of their faith whenever they use that word. In other words for me I would generally speak of my faith in God. I might at times speak of my faith in the American people, but I would never want to confuse my faith in God with my faith in the American people. And so to speak of my "faith" and just my "faith", really doesn't tell anyone anything. They might assume I'm speaking of God when I am speaking of the American people, or of a friend, or of myself.

I hope to spend more time on this blog speaking about faith, specifically faith in God. Please check back.

Big Oil

I know next to nothing about how oil and gasoline is priced, and I have no love or hate for big oil; but it really bugs me when our U.S. Senate calls oil executives up for what everyone knows is a purely political endeavor. And to hear these senators ask their questions, as if they themselves are pure and holy, is embarrassing. The bottom line is that whenever Congress has had opportunities to implement energy alternatives, they passed on it. They keep talking about how we need to be energy independent, but deny the very people who can help us achieve that. In many respects, oil companies are hand tied by Congress from pursuing oil on American soil.

Oil company profits are huge, but it is a huge and costly business. If you tax these profits, the price of gasoline will go up (a concept that seems to confuse Democrats). If you ask oil companies and their shareholders (and many, many Americans are invested in oil) to pass on these profits by lowering the price of gasoline, then at least three things will happen: 1) shareholders will suffer by seeing their investments diminish; 2) oil companies will have less to invest in alternative fuels, newer equipment, and maintenance of older equipment (and 10 years from now when some refinery blows up due to reduced maintenance, these same oil execs will be brought before the Senate to explain why); and 3) most likely the per gallon cost of gasoline would not drop all that much. If Congress wanted to see the price drop at least a little, they could drop the tax rate we're charged at the pump. But that won't happen because Congress wants that money, and quite frankly we need it for road construction. So why should they expect or even demand that oil companies drop their profit margin? Again, a political ploy.  

Questions For Obama

Barrack Obama has built his campaign around two words: hope and change. He is not the first political candidate to use those words; and if Obama were to be president for the next 8 years, despite the savior tags that have been imparted on him, my guess is that future presidential candidates would also run on a platform of hope and change. In other words, no matter what the circumstances are at any given time, there will always be people looking for hope and for change. Senator Obama has wrapped his message with the claim that he is a uniter, not a divider. No politician has ever used that line below (I say tongue in cheek). For someone to make that claim however, they should have some kind of record they can point to to back it up. Obama would be much more believable if he could show us a long and/or substantial list of accomplishments with him in the middle uniting two opposing sides. When asked about this Obama usually points to a few largely obscure pieces of legislation. My guess is that it is questionable whether he was all that active in uniting people even in those instances. When asked about the John Roberts nomination for Supreme Court, where Obama was one of 22 Democratic Senators who voted against Roberts (wouldn't you think a uniter person would be found in the larger list of Democrats who voted for Roberts?), Obama boasted about, in the face of criticism from ultra liberal groups like MoveOn.org, his standing up for those Democrats who voted for Roberts. What a uniter.

So my questions for Senator Obama are these:

1. Uniting people over insignificant legislation is relatively easy. Uniting people over the tough issues (the ones that actually seem to divide people) is not so easy. As a uniter and as one who is an expert on compromise, describe a scenario on the issue of abortion where you would unite people on opposing sides. How would you unite them and what would you envision as a compromise acceptable to both sides?

2. We live in a divided nation, and some would argue that opposing sides help temper the country from going over the edge. Liberals don't want to see a country with conservative values, and conservatives certainly don't want to live by liberal values. So what's wrong with a divided nation?

3. You have named some fairly insignificant legislation that demonstrates you as a uniter. What specifically did you do that no one else was willing to do that moved that legislation forward?

4. Within just a couple years, you have been named the most liberal U.S. Senator. That would seem to indicate that on all legislation you consistently voted with Democrats. Most people would envision a uniter as someone who had the courage to cross party lines, showing they were not tied to their party. When it comes to important legislation, what exactly do you mean when you say you are uniter? Are you specifically speaking of being a uniter within the Democratic party, or as a uniter between parties?

I Bet Your Camera Takes Great Photos

I was talking with a friend the other day. He asked me what the going rate was for photographing weddings. When I told him he looked surprised. He then mentioned that he knows someone who charges about one fourth of what I charge. He paused, thinking about the difference, and then said "well you are probably using a bigger camera". I told him I've never seen my camera take a picture. This conversation reminded me of a similar story a writer once told years ago. A fan who enjoyed one of author's novels and his writing style was curious about what kind of typewriter the author used . . as if that was what made the author such a great writer. Certainly equipment is important, and I want to use the best equipment I possibly can when shooting. But when someone hires me for an event, they are most likely not concerned about what equipment I use. They are hiring me, along with my shooting style and my experience. Quite frankly that is what they are paying for. When it comes to photography for a wedding, there is no going rate. I would expect to pay more for a Picasso painting than I would for some unknown artist (note: I'm not comparing myself to Picasso). To ask what the going rate is for an 18 x 24 painting therefore is unanswerable because it could range from $40 to $4,000,000. The same is true with wedding photography, and there is more to it then simply comparing what is included in a package.