If you read my past blog posts, or if you know me, you know that I am a big fan of the bride and groom seeing each other prior to the ceremony, primarily for the sake of photos. It just makes the whole day go a lot smoother, and my experience is that couples who choose to do it this way are really, really glad they did. But I realize that many people cannot break with the idea of first seeing each other while walking down the aisle (my experience is that most brides are looking either at guests or at me and not at their groom while walking down the aisle). I realize that this is their wedding and I can only offer advice, otherwise I have to go with what is given. But that does not mean I cannot at least plead my case, and here I do it once again.
This link is to some photos taken of grooms (not my photos) when they saw their bride for the first time on their wedding day. The photos were compiled for this article because of the emotion expressed by the grooms. If you study the photos closely, you will see that of the 24 grooms/brides represented, only 4-5 were taken during the actual ceremony and walking down the aisle. All the others were taken during what is commonly called "the first look", when the bride and groom have their moment of seeing each other privately before the wedding. This goes to one of the arguments that I have previously made: that I see more emotion coming from grooms during the "first look" then I do during the walking down the aisle moment; and this goes to another argument I have made: the "first look" actually ends up being a much more special time for a couple than walking down the aisle.
Again, I realize that this is not the case for everyone, and in the case of this article, there certainly was emotion in the 4-5 "walking down the aisle" weddings represented by the photos. I would just encourage couples to think it through, perhaps throw out your original conventional thinking and consider this: how would you plan this day if this was the very first wedding ever?
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Binders Full of Women
Dems are doing their best to find something . . anything . . that they can pin on Romney in order to turn around Obama's slide in the polls. Big Bird didn't seem to help. Blaming the death of our U.S. ambassador in Libya on a YouTube video that no one ever saw didn't work. Boasting about an artificial drop in unemployment didn't help. Pretty much everything the dems have tried has not helped, and that now includes "binders full of women". That does not mean they are not trying though.
Here are a couple thoughts I have regarding "binders full of women":
1. During the debate, Romney said:
“And so we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ And they brought us whole binders full of women.”
Please note where the "binders full of women" came from: women's groups. That's right, women put women into binders, not Romney. If these women's groups had instead put women into . . well, what else would they put these resumes into? So if women (and men) are having problems with "binders full of women", they should aim their fake anger at the women groups that put them there.
2. I can pretty much guarantee that before Romney asked for a list of women's resumes that ended up being given to him in binders, there were whole binders full of men given to Romney. That's right, binders full of men. Where is the outrage? This is obviously a sign of disrespect toward men. Think of it: binders full of men. Come on men, can't we come up with at least a little bit of of our own fake outrage over this?
Here are a couple thoughts I have regarding "binders full of women":
1. During the debate, Romney said:
“And so we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ And they brought us whole binders full of women.”
Please note where the "binders full of women" came from: women's groups. That's right, women put women into binders, not Romney. If these women's groups had instead put women into . . well, what else would they put these resumes into? So if women (and men) are having problems with "binders full of women", they should aim their fake anger at the women groups that put them there.
2. I can pretty much guarantee that before Romney asked for a list of women's resumes that ended up being given to him in binders, there were whole binders full of men given to Romney. That's right, binders full of men. Where is the outrage? This is obviously a sign of disrespect toward men. Think of it: binders full of men. Come on men, can't we come up with at least a little bit of of our own fake outrage over this?
Monday, October 8, 2012
Politics: Things I Don't Understand
1. Here is all you need to know about Mitt Romney and how much tax he pays: If I offered to give you an amount equal to how much Mitt Romney pays in taxes (roughly $2 million) or how much Barack Obama pays in taxes (roughly $162,000), which would you take? I'll give your 15 seconds to decide. What, you don't need 15 seconds? You'll take Romney's 2 million? Why? Yeah, it is substantially more than Obama's $162,000, but won't you feel guilty because Romney paid at a lower percentage rate? That doesn't matter to you, you just want the 2 million? Yeah, I don't understand either why people are making such a big deal about the percentage rate and not looking at the total amount of money being paid in taxes.
2. Why can't people honor the truth rather than spin a lie? When I watch a game and they show a controversial play in slow motion, and it is clear what the correct call should be, I'm okay with getting the call correct, regardless whether it benefits the team I favor or not. Sure, some calls are not clear cut, even on replay, which is why in most cases they rule with the call that was made in real time on the field. But I am more interested in preserving the integrity of the game and honoring the truth than I am with elevating my team. The same should also apply to politics. I can understand supporters wanting to spin bad results into something good, but people are too smart to fall for that. A bad debate isn't because of the altitude of Denver or because Obama is so concerned about protecting the office of the presidency not to fight back or because Romney lied. Obama just debated in the same manner that he has performed as president: detached, uninterested, lazy, arrogant.
3. The left seems to always be really concerned about the little guy . . the guy who doesn't make much money. The left dislikes big business and big money. Not all on the left, mostly those who do not have any money hate those who do have money. As a general rule though, the impression that is put out there is that liberals only like big money when it is something they can take and redistribute to those who do not have money. So why don't these people hate political campaigns with the same vigor. The Obama campaign for example pulled in $181 million just in the month of September. That is a lot of money raised and spent just to elect one person. Seems like a waste to me. Just think of how many teachers could be hired with that kind of money. I can understand conservatives embracing big money . . I don't understand why this kind of fund raising does not repulse a liberal.
4. There were fewer jobs created in September than in August, and there were fewer in August than there was in July. In January 2012 275,000 new jobs were added, followed by 259,000 in February, yet the unemployment rate stayed the same 8.3 between January and February. This was follow by months of very small job creation, ranging from 45,000 to 181,000, not enough to change the unemployment rate more than .2 percentage points. For context, 181,000 jobs were added in July 2012, and the unemployment rate went up .1 percentage point. I don't understand how we can add 114,000 new jobs in September and the rate goes down .3 percentage points. Actually I do understand: fewer people are looking for jobs and the government has dropped these people off these rolls. Basically the country is losing jobs, so you don't need as many people to fill those lost jobs. We're just choosing not to count millions of Americans, which artificially makes the unemployment rate go down. This kind of math is apparently something Obama is happy to embrace, which I don't understand (see point 2).
Monday, October 1, 2012
Eric & Carrie Wedding - Sept. 29, 2012
A few early picks from this past weekend's wedding with Eric and Carrie. It was a great wedding and a perfect day. Click on photos to enlarge.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Shooting In The Dark
This photo is by no means a great photo. It has its problems. I'm posting it here though because when you consider the conditions that it was taken, it is pretty impressive. It was dark. How dark? I was standing maybe 120 feet away, and while I could see the outline of the boat, I could not see the couple or anyone else on the boat. Those two big lights in the back were not all that bright. Between the darkness, distance and engine noise, the couple could not hear me or see me. To me it is pretty amazing that in near pitch darkness an image like this could be captured. Exposure details: iso of 6400, f-stop of 2.8, 1/15 shutter speed hand held.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Climate Change and the Hockey Stick
I am a man made climate change skeptic. Climate changes, that is for certain; but I have deep doubts that man is the cause of anything that we are currently experiencing, just like I doubt that man had anything to do with the Ice Age or with the warming that took place some 1000 years ago. If you watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, you would know that much of it revolved around Michael Mann's hockey stick theory. That theory has since been debunked, which should make "green" people at least wonder if this "green" quest is nothing more than a financial boondoggle. For those with an open mind, here is a short videoclip to get you thinking.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Some Wedding Advice From A Photographer
Every once in awhile I like to offer my unsolicited wedding advice. Of course my interest here is from a photographic perspective. I'm not a wedding planner and I am not a bride, so my interests and priorities are not always in line with theirs. And that is fine. I realize I cannot have things happen the way I deem would be best, and that I have to defer to the wishes of my clients. It is their wedding after all, and I have no interest in imposing my will or wishes on them. But I have been to a lot of weddings over the years, which means I have some experience as a photographer that I believe can be helpful in making a person's wedding a better experience for them. With that in mind, I humbly offer here a few suggestions, again from one photographer's perspective. These are thoughts that I have carried with me for some time now. Here they are, in no particular order:
1. First dance/Father-Daughter dance/Mother-Son dance: There are basically two times for these dances to take place, before dinner or after dinner. It probably does not matter too much when you have it, but what I believe does matter is having the full attention of your guests for those dances. Oftentimes during these dances, I will look around the room. I am looking for emotionally engaged people, with a tear in their eye or a big smile as they watch the bride and her father dance together. These are great photos when they happen. What I often see though are people with their backs to the dance floor, or people off in the corner laughing, or people munching on their salad. And as I am taking photos of the couple dancing, I know that in the background there will be people with their back to the dance floor, or people off in the corner laughing, or people munching on their salad . . all unengaged with this special moment. I'm not sure what the secret is for fully engaging your guests, but my first guess is that it probably starts with your deejay. I would recommend talking with the deejay during your planning process to see what they recommend and what they can do to pull everyone's attention to the dance floor. Now I understand that for some couples, these dances might be important to them, but not so important that they need everyone's full attention. But again, from a photographic perspective, it sure makes for better photos when you have guests who are watching.
2. Ceremony and the Vows: This is very minor and probably difficult for a couple to do while in the moment, but oftentimes during the wedding ceremony, when the couple are facing each other, they tend to look too much at the officiant. The officiant is speaking, so it is understandable that they would look at him (her). When they are looking at the officiant however, they are not looking at each other; and their heads are turned away from the crowd and usually away from the camera. This again is minor because there are of course times when they are looking at each other; but I have done enough weddings where I was mumbling to myself "Please, look at each other" to know that it can be a problem, at least for photos. My advice, stay focused on each other.
3. Go ahead and see each other prior to the ceremony. I, sometimes too passionately, always introduce this concept to couples as an option. Sometimes for practical reasons it just makes better sense to do it this way, but I am convinced from experience that it just makes sense period. I have to be careful here because I am not dogmatic about it, and I don't want potential clients to believe I am dogmatic about this. Some photographers will only photograph a wedding if the couple agrees to do all their photos prior to the ceremony. I certainly have not gotten to that point yet, but I can understand why these photographers prefer the photo session this way.
To me there is no downside to doing all the photos before the ceremony, unless you have a huge amount of down time between the ceremony and the reception, or if the ceremony is real early in the morning. At least a third of the weddings I have done have been done this way, and in every case the couple was enthusiastically glad they did it that way. The first look becomes much more special to them, they get to spend some time talking with each other, all the stress and anxiety is immediately gone . . they can enjoy a relaxed photo session with few distractions, and when the ceremony is over there is not this fast pace, dizzying photo time away from their guests. I will get myself in trouble here, so please be clear that this is just my opinion: most times people don't want to see each other because it is not "traditional" and/or it is considered bad luck. I'm just not sure I can understand basing your wedding on a superstition; and what tradition? When I think tradition I think a church wedding, yet very few weddings I do take place in a church.
I tend to be a romantic, and to me, if done right, a first look can be much more romantic. I've seen more grooms in tears during a first look than I ever have when they see other the first time walking down the aisle. Everyone is different though, and I know that I cannot impose my own thoughts regarding this on anyone else. In the end the photos always seem to work out. The entire day however just seems to go significantly better for everyone when a couple goes ahead and sees each other prior to the ceremony. That at least is my experience.
4. Be on time. Kind of hard for a bride to control her time prior to the ceremony when she is dependent on hair stylists and make up artists and bridesmaids and wardrobe malfunctions. All I can say here is that it seems rare for a bride to be ready on time. I think what might be helpful is to have someone there who is keeping you on track with your timelines. Most wedding coordinators are dealing with the actual ceremony and reception and not with getting the bride ready on time for photos. I would recommend for any bride to have a go person who can do that for you. It needs to be someone who doesn't mind keeping an eye on the clock and is bossy enough to keep you on time. As a bride you have too many other distractions that you can easily lose track of your own time. Having someone there to help keep you on track might be a good thing.
1. First dance/Father-Daughter dance/Mother-Son dance: There are basically two times for these dances to take place, before dinner or after dinner. It probably does not matter too much when you have it, but what I believe does matter is having the full attention of your guests for those dances. Oftentimes during these dances, I will look around the room. I am looking for emotionally engaged people, with a tear in their eye or a big smile as they watch the bride and her father dance together. These are great photos when they happen. What I often see though are people with their backs to the dance floor, or people off in the corner laughing, or people munching on their salad. And as I am taking photos of the couple dancing, I know that in the background there will be people with their back to the dance floor, or people off in the corner laughing, or people munching on their salad . . all unengaged with this special moment. I'm not sure what the secret is for fully engaging your guests, but my first guess is that it probably starts with your deejay. I would recommend talking with the deejay during your planning process to see what they recommend and what they can do to pull everyone's attention to the dance floor. Now I understand that for some couples, these dances might be important to them, but not so important that they need everyone's full attention. But again, from a photographic perspective, it sure makes for better photos when you have guests who are watching.
2. Ceremony and the Vows: This is very minor and probably difficult for a couple to do while in the moment, but oftentimes during the wedding ceremony, when the couple are facing each other, they tend to look too much at the officiant. The officiant is speaking, so it is understandable that they would look at him (her). When they are looking at the officiant however, they are not looking at each other; and their heads are turned away from the crowd and usually away from the camera. This again is minor because there are of course times when they are looking at each other; but I have done enough weddings where I was mumbling to myself "Please, look at each other" to know that it can be a problem, at least for photos. My advice, stay focused on each other.
3. Go ahead and see each other prior to the ceremony. I, sometimes too passionately, always introduce this concept to couples as an option. Sometimes for practical reasons it just makes better sense to do it this way, but I am convinced from experience that it just makes sense period. I have to be careful here because I am not dogmatic about it, and I don't want potential clients to believe I am dogmatic about this. Some photographers will only photograph a wedding if the couple agrees to do all their photos prior to the ceremony. I certainly have not gotten to that point yet, but I can understand why these photographers prefer the photo session this way.
To me there is no downside to doing all the photos before the ceremony, unless you have a huge amount of down time between the ceremony and the reception, or if the ceremony is real early in the morning. At least a third of the weddings I have done have been done this way, and in every case the couple was enthusiastically glad they did it that way. The first look becomes much more special to them, they get to spend some time talking with each other, all the stress and anxiety is immediately gone . . they can enjoy a relaxed photo session with few distractions, and when the ceremony is over there is not this fast pace, dizzying photo time away from their guests. I will get myself in trouble here, so please be clear that this is just my opinion: most times people don't want to see each other because it is not "traditional" and/or it is considered bad luck. I'm just not sure I can understand basing your wedding on a superstition; and what tradition? When I think tradition I think a church wedding, yet very few weddings I do take place in a church.
I tend to be a romantic, and to me, if done right, a first look can be much more romantic. I've seen more grooms in tears during a first look than I ever have when they see other the first time walking down the aisle. Everyone is different though, and I know that I cannot impose my own thoughts regarding this on anyone else. In the end the photos always seem to work out. The entire day however just seems to go significantly better for everyone when a couple goes ahead and sees each other prior to the ceremony. That at least is my experience.
4. Be on time. Kind of hard for a bride to control her time prior to the ceremony when she is dependent on hair stylists and make up artists and bridesmaids and wardrobe malfunctions. All I can say here is that it seems rare for a bride to be ready on time. I think what might be helpful is to have someone there who is keeping you on track with your timelines. Most wedding coordinators are dealing with the actual ceremony and reception and not with getting the bride ready on time for photos. I would recommend for any bride to have a go person who can do that for you. It needs to be someone who doesn't mind keeping an eye on the clock and is bossy enough to keep you on time. As a bride you have too many other distractions that you can easily lose track of your own time. Having someone there to help keep you on track might be a good thing.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
Costa Rica
I recently spent a week doing a corporate photo shoot in Costa Rica. We stayed at the Guanacaste J.W. Marriott. Here are a few images around the property, and a few off property.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Trip Out West and WPPI
I just returned from a two week trip out to California and Las Vegas. The California side of the trip was spent with cousins in San Diego and L.A., and my brother in San Luis Obispo. The Las Vegas side was spent at the Wedding and Portrait Photographers International (WPPI) trade show. This was probably my 5th WPPI and I still seem to walk away with some new info on products and the business. I also seem to walk away a bit conflicted as well. Some of the best wedding photographers in the world are at the show talking about their work. It can be a bit intimidating because I realize there is still a lot of room for my photography to grow. That should motivate me, and it does; but it also frustrates me because I don't want to put myself in a position of trying to copy or imitate other photographers. So I am conflicted.
If asked whether I had any guidance for new photographers, I would offer this standard but true advice: stay true to yourself. Understand your style and how you like to shoot and capture images, and build on that. Perfect it. Make it your signature. That is what I should be practicing myself, rather than trying to recreate a style mastered by someone else. So much of photography, like so much of everything else in our lives, relies on confidence. Just like a pro athlete's performance can suffer when they are lacking confidence, I know my own photography suffers when I am losing confidence in my abilities. So yeah, I do have plenty of room to grow and expand my photography, and I want to continue to learn and experiment. But I also want to stay true to my own style. I know what I like and I know what I don't like. There are photos taken by some of these "rock star" photographers that are absolutely beautiful, and there are images that I really dislike. These photographers seem to see something wonderful in these images. I see cheese, or a weird stance, or blown out highlights. So why would I want to try and imitate their work if I don't like it?
I guess for any artist there is this conflict. We respect the work of other artists, and perhaps secretly wish we had their level of talent. At the same time we believe in our own work, proud of it in fact. I think the most successful artists, and probably the most respected ones, are those who have perfected their own style, and stayed true to it. In the end, that is what I want of myself.
If asked whether I had any guidance for new photographers, I would offer this standard but true advice: stay true to yourself. Understand your style and how you like to shoot and capture images, and build on that. Perfect it. Make it your signature. That is what I should be practicing myself, rather than trying to recreate a style mastered by someone else. So much of photography, like so much of everything else in our lives, relies on confidence. Just like a pro athlete's performance can suffer when they are lacking confidence, I know my own photography suffers when I am losing confidence in my abilities. So yeah, I do have plenty of room to grow and expand my photography, and I want to continue to learn and experiment. But I also want to stay true to my own style. I know what I like and I know what I don't like. There are photos taken by some of these "rock star" photographers that are absolutely beautiful, and there are images that I really dislike. These photographers seem to see something wonderful in these images. I see cheese, or a weird stance, or blown out highlights. So why would I want to try and imitate their work if I don't like it?
I guess for any artist there is this conflict. We respect the work of other artists, and perhaps secretly wish we had their level of talent. At the same time we believe in our own work, proud of it in fact. I think the most successful artists, and probably the most respected ones, are those who have perfected their own style, and stayed true to it. In the end, that is what I want of myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)