I previously posted some reviews of wedding venues in and around Loudoun County (click here and here). As with those reviews, my primary focus has to do with photography. Every venue but one I have been to has done an excellent job serving their clients (for the one exception, click here), and they have treated me well. In other words, when it comes to service and attitude and comfort, my perception is that all of these places are great. We are fortunate in this area to have so many outstanding places for weddings. Maybe the competition is what makes them that much better. Your decision on which venue to choose is probably more based on things like availability, price, size, and whether the venue fits your personality. My intent with these reviews is to give you a view from one photographer's perspective. I'm not judging the quality of the chicken served at dinner, but rather the quality of photo opportunities.
1757 Country Club - This is a relatively new venue for weddings. Photographically there are some nice spots out by the pond and along the course visible to the clubhouse. I have not had a chance to scope out the rest of the course to see if there are even better prospects for photos . . my guess is that there are a few more. Around the clubhouse/reception hall there isn't much to work with. The driving range is right up by the building in the back, the front is mostly parking, and the building, while nice inside, is not that picturesque on the outside. My guess is that most people use 1757 for the reception only and not for the ceremony. That is probably a good thing. I would hope that the ceremony would take place either in a better venue for photos, or that you could build in some time to stop somewhere else close by for photos (Claude Moore Park, Sully Park, Dulles Office Park are all possibilities). The room and facilities inside are very nice. Click here for sample photos from Leesburg and 1757 Country Club.
River Creek Country Club - I've done several receptions at River Creek and wish I had more there. Inside there is plenty of space and it is a good room for photos. Outside you have the golf course, and more importantly, the riverfront park. The park works well for the bride and groom. Not sure I would recommend taking a large wedding party down there, but that kind of depends on the lighting and the time of day. I would prefer to do larger groups up by the clubhouse. I have a full wedding at River Creek in June 2012 and can review what that was like. To me the ideal situation is to have the ceremony somewhere in Leesburg so you can do photos in downtown Leesburg, then complement that with photos down by the river at River Creek. Here too, there is not a whole lot to work with in front of the clubhouse. The back is more versatile, although still not perfect for photos. That is why having another location to use prior to the reception I think would be ideal. Click here for some sample photos taken in Leesburg and at River Creek.
Stone Manor - This Middletown Maryland venue is probably the best set up property I have seen for weddings. The reception takes place under a tent, which might not appeal to everyone; but the tent is set up and landscaped to look almost like just another building (okay, you still know it is a tent, but it is nice). The focal point of the property is the large stone manor house. Very nice inside and out. Plus there are old barns, a small bridge, gravel roadways, and lots of greenery. I was impressed with this place. A bit spread out for my taste, but all in all, lots to work with for photos. From a non-photo perspective, this place is pretty remote, with Frederick being the closest big town. Not the most convenient place for Loudoun folks, but not all that bad either. Definitely worth a look. Click here for sample photos from Stone Manor.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
The Republican Debate of September 22
So I only caught the last half or so of the Republican Debate on Fox (there were better things to do, like watch Community and Big Bang Theory), but I got enough of a glimpse to form a few thoughts:
Gary Johnson - Probably the only reason this guy is making the highlight reel is his dog joke regarding shovel ready jobs. I listened to Rush Limbaugh earlier that day, and Rush used the same joke (not sure if Rush "borrowed" it from someone else or what). Johnson admitted this morning that the joke came as a suggestion from a caller to a local New Mexico radio show. Who knows, maybe that caller got it from Rush. Regardless, the joke was not something Johnson came up with on the spot or even on his own, so why should he get credit or extra debate points for using it? At the very least he should have prefaced the joke by saying something like "it reminds me of a joke I heard . ."
Rick Perry - I really want to like Rick Perry, but for some reason I am still unusually suspicious of him. His debate performances have been awful, and they don't seem to be getting any better. Right now he reminds me of Fred Thompson four years ago: lots of hype coming in, but just cannot live up to it. Organizationally he is in much better shape than Thompson ever was, which might save him; but as someone who doesn't know all that much about the guy, I have not been impressed with him yet.
Mitt Romney - Romney is someone I do not want to like, but his preparation and up front skills are two things that appeal to me. With Romney, I am not convinced that he would come into office ready and willing to wipe away all the junk that Obama and his administration have managed to add to government in the past three years. He seems fickle. Either he is coming into his own over the years, learning from his past mistakes, or he is just wishy washy. Wishy washy equals moderate. Of course even just being a moderate would be a stark contrast to Obama, but I want someone with conservative convictions at their very core. Yes, Romney has some business experience in his background, something he is quick to bring up to contrast himself with those candidates (Perry in particular) who have spent their careers in politics; but as someone pointed out, Romney drifted back into his business career only because he lost a political campaign. If Romney had won all those times, he would have had a longer political career.
Michelle Bachmann - I have always liked Bachmann. She seems sharp and accomplished. She is not a lightweight. It just does not seem possible that she would get the nomination. Whether that is because she is a woman or because she comes from the House or because she sometimes says something that make your head spin . . I don't know. She does not seem to have the straight talk populace appeal that Sarah Palin had as a vice presidential candidate, but I think Bachmann would actually make a better candidate as vice president than Palin, if given the chance.
Ron Paul - This guy will always be a fringe, cult-like candidate. He says some great things and then he says some really off the wall things. He, of all the candidates, would probably come into office with the biggest agenda shift. Questionable if he could get anyone else (particularly in Congress) on board with him though.
All the other candidates I thought did a good job actually. They all seemed informed, passionate, and in many respects qualified for the job. No one candidate has wowed me though, which means that they all have their faults. It's a good process for all of us to go through, trying to determine what criteria is ultimately the most important to us individually and as a country. Do we want someone who supposedly speaks well (look what that got us today), or do we want a policy wonk? Are we comfortable with someone who has some moderate stands on some issues, or do we want a hard core conservative? This is the time to makes these considerations in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. If we don't, we get Obama. That should motivate us all.
Gary Johnson - Probably the only reason this guy is making the highlight reel is his dog joke regarding shovel ready jobs. I listened to Rush Limbaugh earlier that day, and Rush used the same joke (not sure if Rush "borrowed" it from someone else or what). Johnson admitted this morning that the joke came as a suggestion from a caller to a local New Mexico radio show. Who knows, maybe that caller got it from Rush. Regardless, the joke was not something Johnson came up with on the spot or even on his own, so why should he get credit or extra debate points for using it? At the very least he should have prefaced the joke by saying something like "it reminds me of a joke I heard . ."
Rick Perry - I really want to like Rick Perry, but for some reason I am still unusually suspicious of him. His debate performances have been awful, and they don't seem to be getting any better. Right now he reminds me of Fred Thompson four years ago: lots of hype coming in, but just cannot live up to it. Organizationally he is in much better shape than Thompson ever was, which might save him; but as someone who doesn't know all that much about the guy, I have not been impressed with him yet.
Mitt Romney - Romney is someone I do not want to like, but his preparation and up front skills are two things that appeal to me. With Romney, I am not convinced that he would come into office ready and willing to wipe away all the junk that Obama and his administration have managed to add to government in the past three years. He seems fickle. Either he is coming into his own over the years, learning from his past mistakes, or he is just wishy washy. Wishy washy equals moderate. Of course even just being a moderate would be a stark contrast to Obama, but I want someone with conservative convictions at their very core. Yes, Romney has some business experience in his background, something he is quick to bring up to contrast himself with those candidates (Perry in particular) who have spent their careers in politics; but as someone pointed out, Romney drifted back into his business career only because he lost a political campaign. If Romney had won all those times, he would have had a longer political career.
Michelle Bachmann - I have always liked Bachmann. She seems sharp and accomplished. She is not a lightweight. It just does not seem possible that she would get the nomination. Whether that is because she is a woman or because she comes from the House or because she sometimes says something that make your head spin . . I don't know. She does not seem to have the straight talk populace appeal that Sarah Palin had as a vice presidential candidate, but I think Bachmann would actually make a better candidate as vice president than Palin, if given the chance.
Ron Paul - This guy will always be a fringe, cult-like candidate. He says some great things and then he says some really off the wall things. He, of all the candidates, would probably come into office with the biggest agenda shift. Questionable if he could get anyone else (particularly in Congress) on board with him though.
All the other candidates I thought did a good job actually. They all seemed informed, passionate, and in many respects qualified for the job. No one candidate has wowed me though, which means that they all have their faults. It's a good process for all of us to go through, trying to determine what criteria is ultimately the most important to us individually and as a country. Do we want someone who supposedly speaks well (look what that got us today), or do we want a policy wonk? Are we comfortable with someone who has some moderate stands on some issues, or do we want a hard core conservative? This is the time to makes these considerations in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. If we don't, we get Obama. That should motivate us all.
Michael & Crystal River Creek Country Club Wedding
Here are a few images from Michael & Crystal's September 17 wedding. Photos were taken in downtown Leesburg and at River Creek Country Club. Click on image to enlarge. Click here to see more images from this wedding.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Full Moon Over Washington DC
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Tough Love
While watching coverage of Hurricane Irene, it has stuck me how blunt officials have been in their warnings to people who might decide to stay put rather than evacuate. The warning from these officials: if you stay and get into trouble, don't bother calling us for help . . we will not risk the lives of first responders. One official went so far as to recommend that people who stay write their name, social security number, and next of kin contact on a 3x5 card and keep it in their pocket in case they don't survive the storm. Serious warnings for a serious event. The government here is basically saying that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions. If people get into trouble, too bad. You will have to live (or die) with those decisions and actions. Pretty harsh, but it is this kind of tough love that motivates people to respond.
So what would happen if the government took this same approach when it came to day to day decisions and actions by the general public? Imagine what would happen if the government said to people: you bought this house or that car . . if you cannot now pay for it, don't come to us looking for us to save you . . if you are in financial trouble, too bad. Or: if you wasted your days while we provided you with a free education, don't come to us looking for handouts because your minimum wage job doesn't cover your bills. I know, it sounds harsh; but it seems to me that our government is making it way too easy for people to live off of the government. No doubt, there are political leaders who desire to see more of that. Even as food stamps are being used at their highest level in history (surely a sign of failed government), this administration is currently seeking out more people who they can qualify for food stamps (surely the sign of a failed administration).
What would happen if, just prior to a hurricane, officials told citizens it didn't matter whether they evacuated or stayed, emergency officials would be out rescuing people throughout the hurricane? "You have nothing to worry about, we will be there as a safety net to save you, no matter what". More people would stay, putting a much bigger burden on first responders to find and save them. That is exactly where we are right now in our economy, especially when it comes to social services and the big social contract items. Over the years our government, and more specifically the politicians who promised everything for just a few more votes, have basically told the public to take advantage of the multiple safety nets government keeps adding to its arsenal. They have relaxed the rules for who qualifies for these programs. They have extended the length of time people can qualify for these programs. And they have opened the door for abuse on so many levels. So how do people respond? They relax, make stupid decisions, get themselves in trouble . . then come running to the government for a bailout.
Does the government need to offer a safety net to certain people? Absolutely. Some people have needs that are so extreme and so beyond them that the government can be helpful (although it could be argued that a private non profit could serve that person better). But that is not what I am referring to here. I am speaking here about the purposeful shift to draw even more people into that fold, if for no other reason than to make people more dependent on government. When people become more dependent on government, they will more likely vote for the people who want to expand the list of goodies that government will hand out to the people. And that cycle perpetuates itself, growing government to a point where it is nearly impossible to trim it back.
Oh to hear officials tell people: you make bad decisions in your life . . too bad . . we will not rescue you. You will bear the costs for that, we will not burden the American people.
So what would happen if the government took this same approach when it came to day to day decisions and actions by the general public? Imagine what would happen if the government said to people: you bought this house or that car . . if you cannot now pay for it, don't come to us looking for us to save you . . if you are in financial trouble, too bad. Or: if you wasted your days while we provided you with a free education, don't come to us looking for handouts because your minimum wage job doesn't cover your bills. I know, it sounds harsh; but it seems to me that our government is making it way too easy for people to live off of the government. No doubt, there are political leaders who desire to see more of that. Even as food stamps are being used at their highest level in history (surely a sign of failed government), this administration is currently seeking out more people who they can qualify for food stamps (surely the sign of a failed administration).
What would happen if, just prior to a hurricane, officials told citizens it didn't matter whether they evacuated or stayed, emergency officials would be out rescuing people throughout the hurricane? "You have nothing to worry about, we will be there as a safety net to save you, no matter what". More people would stay, putting a much bigger burden on first responders to find and save them. That is exactly where we are right now in our economy, especially when it comes to social services and the big social contract items. Over the years our government, and more specifically the politicians who promised everything for just a few more votes, have basically told the public to take advantage of the multiple safety nets government keeps adding to its arsenal. They have relaxed the rules for who qualifies for these programs. They have extended the length of time people can qualify for these programs. And they have opened the door for abuse on so many levels. So how do people respond? They relax, make stupid decisions, get themselves in trouble . . then come running to the government for a bailout.
Does the government need to offer a safety net to certain people? Absolutely. Some people have needs that are so extreme and so beyond them that the government can be helpful (although it could be argued that a private non profit could serve that person better). But that is not what I am referring to here. I am speaking here about the purposeful shift to draw even more people into that fold, if for no other reason than to make people more dependent on government. When people become more dependent on government, they will more likely vote for the people who want to expand the list of goodies that government will hand out to the people. And that cycle perpetuates itself, growing government to a point where it is nearly impossible to trim it back.
Oh to hear officials tell people: you make bad decisions in your life . . too bad . . we will not rescue you. You will bear the costs for that, we will not burden the American people.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Great Video
This video is mesmerizing. As I understand it, there were 1500 photos used in this 2 minute film, with 500 people holding them. Very creative, and I'm guessing a lot of time to produce.
Monday, August 22, 2011
9/11 Motorcycle Ride in Leesburg, Virginia
Roughly 1800 motorcycles made their way through downtown Leesburg August 19, all part of the 911 Foundation annual ride from Pennsylvania to Washington to New York.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Jason & Joyanna Wedding at Morven Park
I know when people plan a wedding five plus months out, especially for mid-August, weather is one of the biggest concerns. I know it was for Joyanna. She wanted an outdoor wedding more than anything. Fortunately, Friday August 12 turned out to be a beautiful day for her outdoor wedding, and Morven Park was a great choice. Here are a quick images. Click on image to enlarge. For more images from this wedding, click here.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Random Thoughts on Debt Ceiling
1. Norah O'Donnell, formerly of NBC and now the White House correspondent with CBS, seems to be pretty distraught about there being no new taxes imposed as part of the debt ceiling deal. As you watch this clip, notice two things: a) her disgust with no new tax revenue, and b) her statement that "they (WH) gave them (Republicans) everything they wanted, and we (Democrats, presumably) got nothing". Kind of a stark admission by Norah. No need to wonder exactly who "we" are. And this by a CBS White House correspondent. So much for a non-biased journalist. Do they even exist anymore?
2. In response to a question about the Tea Party, Mitch McConnell wanted to make sure that he expressed appreciation for the Tea Party and their influence, but what he said I found troubling. McConnell basically said that if it was not for the Tea Party, Congress most likely would not have addressed budget cuts in the debt ceiling deal. A compliment with an unintended meaning. In other words, if left to the established Republicans already in office (like McConnell), the debt ceiling would have passed just like every other ceiling increase in the past, with no attempts to address spending. Most of these old time Republicans have been just as addicted to spending as their Democratic counterparts, oblivious to the costs. We should be thankful for these 75+ new Republican "terrorists" who seem to be inflicting terror in all of the old guard on both sides of the aisle.
3. Matt Damon says he wants to pay more taxes. That is great. So go ahead Matt, what is keeping you from paying more? It sounds like you are waiting for the government to compel you to do something that you believe you should already be doing. Why wait? My guess is that Damon takes advantage of every tax deduction/credit/shelter available to minimize his tax burden. Why? So he can pay the least amount possible. So why not choose to decline those credits/deductions/shelters? Why not fully expose your earnings so you can pay the most taxes possible? Or why not just write a check to the government for an additional amount? Or answer this: if you had $100,000 left over to give away, would you choose to give it to the federal government, or to let's say the Red Cross, or your local food bank, or to an orphanage in Mexico? I'm guessing not the government. Why not?
4. The general American public needs to prepare itself for some pretty nasty battles and name calling over the next few years. The debt ceiling debate got testy, and the liberal left have lost all sense of peace and love and hope and change as they call any opponents "terrorists" and "racists" and "monsters". All of this provoked by what amounts to being fairly minor decreases in spending. We really have not gotten to the serious reductions yet, the ones that will have a more direct impact on our debt. These are the cuts that will affect all of the liberal institutions that have been built over the past 50 years, and just like disturbing a beehive, liberals will get angry. Like I said, get ready for some pretty nasty battles.
5. One additional thought related to the last one: most every sane person acknowledges that as a country we cannot sustain the spending that our government has taken on over the past 50 years. Their programs may have had good intentions at the beginning, but we simply cannot continue all of them; and those that we need to continue need to be seriously reformed. The Democrats don't seem to want to have anything of it. Instead they insist that we will be killing off old people and children and the poor. But they have nothing to offer about how to pay for these things, other than making those who already overwhelmingly pay the most to pay even more. Never mind that doing so falls way short of what is needed. And never mind what their beloved programs are doing to the people of this country, creating a dependent class of citizens who allow the government to provide their daily needs. This president likes to talk about sacrifice, something he has probably never done in his life. These liberals will have to sacrifice many of their beloved programs, turning them over to private and/or non-profit entities, or just eliminating them. But will they? Will they see their folly and acknowledge that there are some things that government is simply not built to do, or will they stand in the way? This is the battle line.
2. In response to a question about the Tea Party, Mitch McConnell wanted to make sure that he expressed appreciation for the Tea Party and their influence, but what he said I found troubling. McConnell basically said that if it was not for the Tea Party, Congress most likely would not have addressed budget cuts in the debt ceiling deal. A compliment with an unintended meaning. In other words, if left to the established Republicans already in office (like McConnell), the debt ceiling would have passed just like every other ceiling increase in the past, with no attempts to address spending. Most of these old time Republicans have been just as addicted to spending as their Democratic counterparts, oblivious to the costs. We should be thankful for these 75+ new Republican "terrorists" who seem to be inflicting terror in all of the old guard on both sides of the aisle.
3. Matt Damon says he wants to pay more taxes. That is great. So go ahead Matt, what is keeping you from paying more? It sounds like you are waiting for the government to compel you to do something that you believe you should already be doing. Why wait? My guess is that Damon takes advantage of every tax deduction/credit/shelter available to minimize his tax burden. Why? So he can pay the least amount possible. So why not choose to decline those credits/deductions/shelters? Why not fully expose your earnings so you can pay the most taxes possible? Or why not just write a check to the government for an additional amount? Or answer this: if you had $100,000 left over to give away, would you choose to give it to the federal government, or to let's say the Red Cross, or your local food bank, or to an orphanage in Mexico? I'm guessing not the government. Why not?
4. The general American public needs to prepare itself for some pretty nasty battles and name calling over the next few years. The debt ceiling debate got testy, and the liberal left have lost all sense of peace and love and hope and change as they call any opponents "terrorists" and "racists" and "monsters". All of this provoked by what amounts to being fairly minor decreases in spending. We really have not gotten to the serious reductions yet, the ones that will have a more direct impact on our debt. These are the cuts that will affect all of the liberal institutions that have been built over the past 50 years, and just like disturbing a beehive, liberals will get angry. Like I said, get ready for some pretty nasty battles.
5. One additional thought related to the last one: most every sane person acknowledges that as a country we cannot sustain the spending that our government has taken on over the past 50 years. Their programs may have had good intentions at the beginning, but we simply cannot continue all of them; and those that we need to continue need to be seriously reformed. The Democrats don't seem to want to have anything of it. Instead they insist that we will be killing off old people and children and the poor. But they have nothing to offer about how to pay for these things, other than making those who already overwhelmingly pay the most to pay even more. Never mind that doing so falls way short of what is needed. And never mind what their beloved programs are doing to the people of this country, creating a dependent class of citizens who allow the government to provide their daily needs. This president likes to talk about sacrifice, something he has probably never done in his life. These liberals will have to sacrifice many of their beloved programs, turning them over to private and/or non-profit entities, or just eliminating them. But will they? Will they see their folly and acknowledge that there are some things that government is simply not built to do, or will they stand in the way? This is the battle line.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Scott & Jeanne's July 23 Wedding
Here are a handful of images from Scott and Jeanne's Bluemont/Purcellville wedding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)