I spoke to a friend of mine recently whose son recently completed a photography degree. When I asked her what sort of photography he wanted to do her immediate response was "not weddings or portraits!". And this seems to be something of a theme with (aspiring) photographers, that these two areas of photography are a bit beneath those "serious" about their work, that they aren't "art", and so on. And I do know that there are a lot of atrociously bad wedding and portrait photographers, who seem driven by money rather than aesthetics, but I do think that maybe there's more to it than that.
I can't pretend to be an expert on weddings – I haven't shot all that many – but those that I have done I've really enjoyed – after all, they are a celebration, and working with a hundred or so people who are clearly enjoying themselves really isn't all that onerous :-)
On which note: here's today's shot, one of the 300 or so I shot at a wedding last Sunday. And it isn't the best photograph I took that day, but as emblematic shots go, I'm pleased with how it turned out.
capture date camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped?
1.02pm on 12/12/04
Canon 20D
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
29mm (46mm equiv.)
f/4.0
1/80
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
DPP
no
comment bytristan.net at 09:18 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
somehow this shot isn't very flattering to his hand.
comment byMc at 09:21 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
I like how the clearest, most decipherable word on the document is "Marriage". I knew it was a wedding shot from that and the ring. Definitely very symbolic. I enjoy your pictures immensely, Mr. N!
The depth of field is a little off in my opinion. I'm thinking you wanted focus on the ring, but instead it's on the hair from the top. Just a little off, but still interesting no less.
comment byDaaave at 09:40 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
Whenever I do eventually get married, I want the photographer to take shots like this and less of the posed boring groups shots where everyone just lookslike they want to get away and hit the bar...
I kind of agree with the DOF comment above, the sharpest area seems to be slightly behind the ring. But all the same, It'snot that bad and I don't think the person who owns this hand would really notice. Very nice.
comment bydjn1 at 09:42 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
OK, I'll qualify my "I’m pleased with how it turned out" comment. It would have been great if the area of sharpest focus had been an inch further forward, but other that that I'm pleased with how it turned out ;-)
comment by Maxine at 09:44 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
The first thing that comes to my mind when I looked at this photo was a portrait of ´power´, I read the photo as a business man signing a contract or cheque. I was quite surprise to find out what in reality it is , but still , power is there or should I say, it is a powerful image and I jut love the colours of it. Well done!
comment byJerome at 09:51 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
The first word that came to mind was anxiety. It is unflattering to the hand, but I can see a bit of nail on the forefinger which prevents it from being just a knuckly stump, and its posture (can a hand have posture?) combined with the subtle tension of satisfying legal requirements on a day that is supposed to be about a union in love, to me, communicates well enough the anxiety that a wedding day can generate.
comment byJerome at 09:59 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
OK, I just noticed the title. :P Maybe it's not a legal document but that is of little consequence because the picture doesn't stand alone. This would be a great addition to a wedding album, and this is what you have in mind every time you release the shutter when photographing a wedding.
comment bypixpop at 10:10 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
Yeah, there's a lot of negativity out there about wedding photos. I think it's baloney. Have you seen Marc Williams work?
He, among many others, puts the lie to the idea that it's not art. Of course there are hacks, but there are plenty of inspiring creative folk who do nothing but weddings. Many make a good living at it.
I think fundamentally, that if you don't like people, and if you think the work is drudgery, then you will be a hack and it will show in the work. Just look at Marc's work.. you can tell that he loves doing it. These are happy pictures of happy people.
comment by R at 10:21 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
I hear the same thing here in Dallas, TX about how "Heath Robinson" shooting weddings and portraits for work is as if it wasn't a respectable trade.
I figure there's content there waiting to happen. I shoot my first "real" wedding tomorrow night... wish me luck...
comment byJoann at 10:38 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
I think part of the reason some photographers are so quick to point out they are not wedding or portrait photographers is the general perception non-photographers, (and even a few photographers), have that portraits or weddings *must* be what photography is all about. I see that a lot. It's an understandable perception though. Weddings and portraits are usually the only times non-photographers have interaction with photographers.
comment bypicturegrl at 11:00 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
At first I thought that this was the groom signing the marriage license, which would have been nice (unless I am misunderstanding your meaning of the word "register" --- I take that to mean something like the guest book.) As a photojournalist myself, shooting primarily for newspapers and magazines, I must add that this is a nice piece of journalism and a good example of what can be done beyond the "standard" wedding photography.
Having shot a few weddings, I think that what I personally find unpleasant about them is the demand by the bride/groom/bride's mother/family cat to shoot the posed photos of bride and groom with her parents, with his parents, with his sisters, with her brothers, with both sets of parents, bride with mom, bride with dad, bride with his mom, bride with his dad, etc. As much as I have tried, I have never been able to dissuade couples from all of that. And who am I to say that it shouldn't be shot? I just don't enjoy it the way I enjoy the other parts of the wedding.
I think the other reason some photographers are so quick to point out that they do not shoot weddings is it keeps them from being conned into shooting distant friend/relative's weddings for free and it keeps them from being lumped in with all the wedding photographers who ARE hacks. I was once at a wedding were the photographer spent most of his time hiding behind a potted plant, popping up every once in a while like a jack in the box to take a photo. I would NEVER want to be like him! Much better to just say I don't shoot weddings, then pick and choose the ones that are truly meaningful to me.
comment byEric at 11:10 PM (GMT) on 16 December, 2004
I was wondering if it was a certificate for devorce... well glad that that isnt the case, lol. (a lot of marriages have been falling apart around here)
comment bys at 04:35 AM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
God, these hairs are great! It's a Joycean thing, I guess, but I never really felt as if I understood the way knuckles and wrinkles work together to unite in such a, well, unified FORM until this shot.
Truly, this is one of your best. BRAVO! Please DO keep doing more shots like this, and MAKE sure you share them, by all means. Lemon soap, time in the outhouse, buy some kidney and all that!
By the way... Congrats on number 1,000 David. A great accomplishment.
comment by peterv at 06:24 AM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
A more creative approach to wedding photographs is surely to be welcomed, I've seen some tedious wedding albums.
This is a good idea to include the man's ring in the register signing.
Here's the but. :-)
But I think the placing of it in the centre is wrong. If it had been at the golden mean on the right you would have lost the watch which is irrelevant and slighlty distracting, and the hairs which are inevitable (we all have them:) would be less prominent.
comment byJerome at 09:41 AM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
1000 Favorite votes on photoblogs.org. Congratulations!
comment bypierre at 09:51 AM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
I've got the exact same watch :)
I don't particulalrly enjoy wedding photographs, but I like this one. I find it's simple and efficient, and the DOF and framing are nicely done.
comment by Jorge at 01:03 PM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
Interesting =O)
comment byShad at 01:48 PM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
I my wife's boss is a portrait photographer. He shoots a lot of seniors, sports teams and buisness folks. He is very talented and absolutely loves what he does. The only thing he doesn't do is weddings. He says they are a lot of work. He enjoys them only if the client is willing to work with him. He takes a lot of non-traditional stuff. Along with the wedding portrait shots he takes a lot of abstract shots like this one. There is a lot of pressure to capture that "moment" in time. It doesn't help that a wedding day is like organized chaos and I could understand how him and many others could get burnt out on them.
comment byBrooks at 04:18 PM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
I'm one of those guys you're talking about. It's more than the perceived lack of art, but a few more things for me. Fist off, I would rather have the VP of Marketing looking over my shoulder than a bride any day. Second, unless you're one of the elite wedding photographers, it just doesn't pay like advertising. Third, no possibility of a re-shoot! And fourth, after working with professional models and crew, it's frustrating working with the general public. I'm just not cut out for it. Now, I'm going to have to dig into the old archives to see if I can find a wedding photo I've shot for a friend to post.
comment byJason Wall at 05:44 PM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
Weddings are hard, and there is a lot of pressure on you to perform, even if the bride and groom are great and flexible. There is little time to think, its a long long day, and after you've done several, the novelty completely wears off. Its hard to remember that just because you've seen that particular pose before a hundred times doesn't mean your client has.
I've done 5 weddings, and from what I'm told by my clients, I've done well. They were all happy. In general, I like shooting weddings. Part of it is because its an easy way to break into commercial photography, to earn money for equipment, and to gain experience having to work in time sensitive situations and dealing with a lot of stress. Part of it is because being there during what is often one of the happiest days of a persons life is infectious, and I like watching them enjoy themselves.
The most difficult part is trying to understand and read your clients. What is it they want out of your photos. What kind of artistry are they looking for, and will enjoy seeing later.
comment bymiklos at 06:11 PM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
I like the fact that the word "marriage" shows in the photo, though if it was a bit more in focus.. that would kick ass.
comment bydjn1 at 11:10 PM (GMT) on 17 December, 2004
Jerome and picturegrl: I think my title didn't translate all that well. Signing the register in the UK is the same as signing the license in the US.
pixpop: thanks for the link - it's excellent.
R: good luck :-)
picturegrl: no, I'm not keen on the 'formal' shots either, but I really enjoy the rest of it.
Jessyel and Jerome: thanks, it's much appreciated.
peterv: I know what you mean, but I quite like the geometry of the ring, watch and pen.
Shad: I actually like the chaos and that feeling that if you don't get the shot it's gone forever. I guess it depends how you look at it: personally I'm happy if I catch most of the moments and aren't going to beat myself up if I don't get all of them.
Brooks: photography is a sideline for me so the money (what little there is on occasion) is nice, but not essential. And I guess the idea of working with a model and crew just doesn't appeal to me. It's much easier to watch what's going on and capture it than it is to direct the action too ;-)
comment by sean at 05:59 AM (GMT) on 22 December, 2004
when i saw this, I imediatly thought that it was symbolic of a person who'se obviously married, but caught up in work so that he is 'too busy' for marriage. It llooks like he's a businessman at work and I interpreted it as him being not 'present' for the marriage, although w're tryng to focus on the fact that he actually as one. he's busy otherwise with whateve rhe's doing.
i have NO clue how you guys can read the word 'wedding' on that form. i surely can't.
anyways .. i took it negatively. GREAT shot .. made me stop and watch it for quite a few seconds
comment by Stano at 12:35 AM (GMT) on 1 January, 2005
A truly wonderful shot - as to what it conveys especially. His wedding ring, now in fucus, his signing hand - well - not so much. A simple explanation, but, I feel, appropriate in this case.
Wonder what this means though?
29mm (46mm equiv.)
So what is it? Sorry to be so naive, but your lense is only up to 40mm; so what do you mean by that? You've no explanation of any diopters or tubes installed. Hope you have the time to explain this. Love your photos. Inspirational at the least.
comment by Rebecca Knapp at 10:40 PM (GMT) on 1 January, 2005
Hi there, I am the wife of the hand!! I think that it is a great photo, superbly capturing the sentiments of the day. We wanted wedding photographs that was interesting artwork, capturing us as ourselves, smiling and being us, without all the formal poses.
I like this photo also, as it is typically James, who by the way is the hand owner, as to me it shows the seriousness and implications of signing a marriage register yet still had all the gentleness and masculinity of the man that I have just married!! Anyway, I think it's a fantastic photo and that all wedding photogtraphy should be like this.
I spoke to a friend of mine recently whose son recently completed a photography degree. When I asked her what sort of photography he wanted to do her immediate response was "not weddings or portraits!". And this seems to be something of a theme with (aspiring) photographers, that these two areas of photography are a bit beneath those "serious" about their work, that they aren't "art", and so on. And I do know that there are a lot of atrociously bad wedding and portrait photographers, who seem driven by money rather than aesthetics, but I do think that maybe there's more to it than that.
I can't pretend to be an expert on weddings – I haven't shot all that many – but those that I have done I've really enjoyed – after all, they are a celebration, and working with a hundred or so people who are clearly enjoying themselves really isn't all that onerous :-)
On which note: here's today's shot, one of the 300 or so I shot at a wedding last Sunday. And it isn't the best photograph I took that day, but as emblematic shots go, I'm pleased with how it turned out.
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
Canon 20D
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
29mm (46mm equiv.)
f/4.0
1/80
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
DPP
no
somehow this shot isn't very flattering to his hand.
I like how the clearest, most decipherable word on the document is "Marriage". I knew it was a wedding shot from that and the ring. Definitely very symbolic. I enjoy your pictures immensely, Mr. N!
The depth of field is a little off in my opinion. I'm thinking you wanted focus on the ring, but instead it's on the hair from the top. Just a little off, but still interesting no less.
Whenever I do eventually get married, I want the photographer to take shots like this and less of the posed boring groups shots where everyone just lookslike they want to get away and hit the bar...
I kind of agree with the DOF comment above, the sharpest area seems to be slightly behind the ring. But all the same, It'snot that bad and I don't think the person who owns this hand would really notice. Very nice.
OK, I'll qualify my "I’m pleased with how it turned out" comment. It would have been great if the area of sharpest focus had been an inch further forward, but other that that I'm pleased with how it turned out ;-)
The first thing that comes to my mind when I looked at this photo was a portrait of ´power´, I read the photo as a business man signing a contract or cheque. I was quite surprise to find out what in reality it is , but still , power is there or should I say, it is a powerful image and I jut love the colours of it. Well done!
The first word that came to mind was anxiety. It is unflattering to the hand, but I can see a bit of nail on the forefinger which prevents it from being just a knuckly stump, and its posture (can a hand have posture?) combined with the subtle tension of satisfying legal requirements on a day that is supposed to be about a union in love, to me, communicates well enough the anxiety that a wedding day can generate.
OK, I just noticed the title. :P Maybe it's not a legal document but that is of little consequence because the picture doesn't stand alone. This would be a great addition to a wedding album, and this is what you have in mind every time you release the shutter when photographing a wedding.
Yeah, there's a lot of negativity out there about wedding photos. I think it's baloney. Have you seen Marc Williams work?
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=282922
He, among many others, puts the lie to the idea that it's not art. Of course there are hacks, but there are plenty of inspiring creative folk who do nothing but weddings. Many make a good living at it.
I think fundamentally, that if you don't like people, and if you think the work is drudgery, then you will be a hack and it will show in the work. Just look at Marc's work.. you can tell that he loves doing it. These are happy pictures of happy people.
I hear the same thing here in Dallas, TX about how "Heath Robinson" shooting weddings and portraits for work is as if it wasn't a respectable trade.
I figure there's content there waiting to happen. I shoot my first "real" wedding tomorrow night... wish me luck...
I think part of the reason some photographers are so quick to point out they are not wedding or portrait photographers is the general perception non-photographers, (and even a few photographers), have that portraits or weddings *must* be what photography is all about. I see that a lot. It's an understandable perception though. Weddings and portraits are usually the only times non-photographers have interaction with photographers.
At first I thought that this was the groom signing the marriage license, which would have been nice (unless I am misunderstanding your meaning of the word "register" --- I take that to mean something like the guest book.) As a photojournalist myself, shooting primarily for newspapers and magazines, I must add that this is a nice piece of journalism and a good example of what can be done beyond the "standard" wedding photography.
Having shot a few weddings, I think that what I personally find unpleasant about them is the demand by the bride/groom/bride's mother/family cat to shoot the posed photos of bride and groom with her parents, with his parents, with his sisters, with her brothers, with both sets of parents, bride with mom, bride with dad, bride with his mom, bride with his dad, etc. As much as I have tried, I have never been able to dissuade couples from all of that. And who am I to say that it shouldn't be shot? I just don't enjoy it the way I enjoy the other parts of the wedding.
I think the other reason some photographers are so quick to point out that they do not shoot weddings is it keeps them from being conned into shooting distant friend/relative's weddings for free and it keeps them from being lumped in with all the wedding photographers who ARE hacks. I was once at a wedding were the photographer spent most of his time hiding behind a potted plant, popping up every once in a while like a jack in the box to take a photo. I would NEVER want to be like him! Much better to just say I don't shoot weddings, then pick and choose the ones that are truly meaningful to me.
I was wondering if it was a certificate for devorce... well glad that that isnt the case, lol. (a lot of marriages have been falling apart around here)
God, these hairs are great! It's a Joycean thing, I guess, but I never really felt as if I understood the way knuckles and wrinkles work together to unite in such a, well, unified FORM until this shot.
Truly, this is one of your best. BRAVO! Please DO keep doing more shots like this, and MAKE sure you share them, by all means. Lemon soap, time in the outhouse, buy some kidney and all that!
By the way... Congrats on number 1,000 David. A great accomplishment.
A more creative approach to wedding photographs is surely to be welcomed, I've seen some tedious wedding albums.
This is a good idea to include the man's ring in the register signing.
Here's the but. :-)
But I think the placing of it in the centre is wrong. If it had been at the golden mean on the right you would have lost the watch which is irrelevant and slighlty distracting, and the hairs which are inevitable (we all have them:) would be less prominent.
1000 Favorite votes on photoblogs.org. Congratulations!
I've got the exact same watch :)
I don't particulalrly enjoy wedding photographs, but I like this one. I find it's simple and efficient, and the DOF and framing are nicely done.
Interesting =O)
I my wife's boss is a portrait photographer. He shoots a lot of seniors, sports teams and buisness folks. He is very talented and absolutely loves what he does. The only thing he doesn't do is weddings. He says they are a lot of work. He enjoys them only if the client is willing to work with him. He takes a lot of non-traditional stuff. Along with the wedding portrait shots he takes a lot of abstract shots like this one. There is a lot of pressure to capture that "moment" in time. It doesn't help that a wedding day is like organized chaos and I could understand how him and many others could get burnt out on them.
I'm one of those guys you're talking about. It's more than the perceived lack of art, but a few more things for me. Fist off, I would rather have the VP of Marketing looking over my shoulder than a bride any day. Second, unless you're one of the elite wedding photographers, it just doesn't pay like advertising. Third, no possibility of a re-shoot! And fourth, after working with professional models and crew, it's frustrating working with the general public. I'm just not cut out for it. Now, I'm going to have to dig into the old archives to see if I can find a wedding photo I've shot for a friend to post.
Weddings are hard, and there is a lot of pressure on you to perform, even if the bride and groom are great and flexible. There is little time to think, its a long long day, and after you've done several, the novelty completely wears off. Its hard to remember that just because you've seen that particular pose before a hundred times doesn't mean your client has.
I've done 5 weddings, and from what I'm told by my clients, I've done well. They were all happy. In general, I like shooting weddings. Part of it is because its an easy way to break into commercial photography, to earn money for equipment, and to gain experience having to work in time sensitive situations and dealing with a lot of stress. Part of it is because being there during what is often one of the happiest days of a persons life is infectious, and I like watching them enjoy themselves.
The most difficult part is trying to understand and read your clients. What is it they want out of your photos. What kind of artistry are they looking for, and will enjoy seeing later.
I like the fact that the word "marriage" shows in the photo, though if it was a bit more in focus.. that would kick ass.
Jerome and picturegrl: I think my title didn't translate all that well. Signing the register in the UK is the same as signing the license in the US.
pixpop: thanks for the link - it's excellent.
R: good luck :-)
picturegrl: no, I'm not keen on the 'formal' shots either, but I really enjoy the rest of it.
Jessyel and Jerome: thanks, it's much appreciated.
peterv: I know what you mean, but I quite like the geometry of the ring, watch and pen.
Shad: I actually like the chaos and that feeling that if you don't get the shot it's gone forever. I guess it depends how you look at it: personally I'm happy if I catch most of the moments and aren't going to beat myself up if I don't get all of them.
Brooks: photography is a sideline for me so the money (what little there is on occasion) is nice, but not essential. And I guess the idea of working with a model and crew just doesn't appeal to me. It's much easier to watch what's going on and capture it than it is to direct the action too ;-)
when i saw this, I imediatly thought that it was symbolic of a person who'se obviously married, but caught up in work so that he is 'too busy' for marriage. It llooks like he's a businessman at work and I interpreted it as him being not 'present' for the marriage, although w're tryng to focus on the fact that he actually as one. he's busy otherwise with whateve rhe's doing.
i have NO clue how you guys can read the word 'wedding' on that form. i surely can't.
anyways .. i took it negatively. GREAT shot .. made me stop and watch it for quite a few seconds
A truly wonderful shot - as to what it conveys especially. His wedding ring, now in fucus, his signing hand - well - not so much. A simple explanation, but, I feel, appropriate in this case.
Wonder what this means though?
29mm (46mm equiv.)
So what is it? Sorry to be so naive, but your lense is only up to 40mm; so what do you mean by that? You've no explanation of any diopters or tubes installed. Hope you have the time to explain this. Love your photos. Inspirational at the least.
Hi there, I am the wife of the hand!! I think that it is a great photo, superbly capturing the sentiments of the day. We wanted wedding photographs that was interesting artwork, capturing us as ourselves, smiling and being us, without all the formal poses.
I like this photo also, as it is typically James, who by the way is the hand owner, as to me it shows the seriousness and implications of signing a marriage register yet still had all the gentleness and masculinity of the man that I have just married!! Anyway, I think it's a fantastic photo and that all wedding photogtraphy should be like this.