A Vineyard Affair

bdcolen · June 30, 2009

These images are from a recent wedding assignment on Martha's Vineyard. Virtually all the photos are candid - other than the two "formals" and the group photos on the dock at night, which the wedding party requested. The beach photos are candid - the couple wanted me to go to the beach with them, and whatever happened happened. Don't tell me about umbrellas, HDR, eye-sparklies - or whatever: I don't do them. This is what I do. :wink

share.mg?AlbumID=8743358&ImageID=578419536&ImageKey=yzBHh&how=forum&Page=1

And the rest are here

Enjoy - or don't. C&C welcome.

dlplumer · June 30, 2009

"This is what I do. "

My take on "this" is that you specialize in framing and composing, and obviously you do it very well

I love how you framed and composed each of these (especially #1), and I guess that is why you have us doing a framing exercise (which I have not yet gotten around to).

Dan:D

bdcolen · June 30, 2009

dlplumer wrote:

"This is what I do. "

My take on "this" is that you specialize in framing and composing, and obviously you do it very well

I love how you framed and composed each of these (especially #1), and I guess that is why you have us doing a framing exercise (which I have not yet gotten around to).

Dan:D

"What I do" - at least what I try to do, is tell the story of the wedding by capturing its special moments in images that are as interesting as photographs as they are documents of an event. Obviously I don't succeed at that with all images - and there are some moments that simply must be included. And yes, framing is important, because when all is said and done, it's all we really have.

Agnieszka · June 30, 2009

"This is not what I do" ...

I do really like your church photos and some of your candids, but I am missing photos of just the couple in your gallery ... photo journalistic style or not, I am sure in general couples like to have some photos of their wedding day (even if it's of just the 2 of them interacting on the beach) down the road ...

As I said, I really enjoyed looking at the ceremony photos ... #1 however hurts me.

bdcolen · June 30, 2009

Agnieszka wrote:

"This is not what I do" ...

I do really like your church photos and some of your candids, but I am missing photos of just the couple in your gallery ... photo journalistic style or not, I am sure in general couples like to have some photos of their wedding day (even if it's of just the 2 of them interacting on the beach) down the road ...

As I said, I really enjoyed looking at the ceremony photos ... #1 however hurts me.

Hurts you? How so?

Agnieszka · June 30, 2009

bdcolen wrote:

Hurts you? How so?

Let's see. I do like "paparazzi" shots like this, don't get me wrong ... something in the foreground, ... something in the background ... I love photos of the parents during the ceremony (although I think it's just the rehearsal here, right?).

I guess I just don't understand what you are trying to say with this photo, and try to balance it against the feelings of the 2 girls / drawing all the attention to you, being all the way up there in front of the church.

> I don't see any interesting interactions
> the angle is not telling me anything special either
> you probably made the 2 girls super uncomfortable not only staying up there, but being so close to them, while they were trying to concentrate on something else (I bet they were just wondering the whole time what sort of shot you're taking)
> even if nobody is looking at you in that shot, you have everybody's attention, and I'm not sure if this photo is worth "it"?
> I would have found it more interesting to see a shot where you're sitting behind mom & dad and you would be shooting towards whatever is going on in the front, or be in the front, and have the bridal party on the left / have the parents on the right?

Other things I'm missing is a photo of the interior of the church, during the ceremony to show off the gorgeous, bright church + Martha's Vineyard is such a beautiful place, I would have tried to take a bit more advantage of it

to tell the *full* story.

bdcolen · June 30, 2009

Agnieszka wrote:

Let's see. I do like "paparazzi" shots like this, don't get me wrong ... something in the foreground, ... something in the background ... I love photos of the parents during the ceremony (although I think it's just the rehearsal here, right?).

I guess I just don't understand what you are trying to say with this photo, and try to balance it against the feelings of the 2 girls / drawing all the attention to you, being all the way up there in front of the church.

> I don't see any interesting interactions
> the angle is not telling me anything special either
> you probably made the 2 girls super uncomfortable not only staying up there, but being so close to them, while they were trying to concentrate on something else (I bet they were just wondering the whole time what sort of shot you're taking)
> even if nobody is looking at you in that shot, you have everybody's attention, and I'm not sure if this photo is worth "it"?
> I would have found it more interesting to see a shot where you're sitting behind mom & dad and you would be shooting towards whatever is going on in the front, or be in the front, and have the bridal party on the left / have the parents on the right?

Other things I'm missing is a photo of the interior of the church, during the ceremony to show off the gorgeous, bright church + Martha's Vineyard is such a beautiful place, I would have tried to take a bit more advantage of it to tell the *full* story.

Interesting take on this, Angie - but -
First, these are 5 of 1600 images of the wedding weekend, beginning with the rehearsal. I in fact included a link to a gallery of about 140 of those images, including this one of the church interior:

There are shots from the front, shots from the back, shots from down below. If I was going to be up in the midst of the action, I could not simultaneously be shooting from behind the parents. And while it is certainly "easier" and more "comfortable" to sit back behind people with a 200 or even 300 and bang away like a "paparazzi" at a scene 30 feet away, that's not the way I work.

As to the shot that makes you uncomfortable - what it shows is both sets of parents, in the setting of the church, framed by part of the action on the raised platform at the front of the church. I'd say it's pretty clear from the expression on the bridesmaid at the right that you are made far more uncomfortable by my presence than she was

To quote from the unsolicited, handwritten note I received from the bride's mother on behalf of the entire family..."You were everywhere, but never 'in the way' of anything."

But to each their own, right?

Believe me, I know there are many, many images in those 1600 that are acceptable to me, and mean something to the client, but are not outstanding. The rule of thumb at LIFE and LOOK magazines in the "glory days" of photo journalism was that if a photographer got two "keepers" - images that she wanted for her own collection - out of every roll of 36 exposures, she was doing well. At that rate, I shot the equivalent of 44 rolls of film to cover the rehearsal, rehearsal dinner, getting ready, wedding ceremony, and reception, and should have about 88 keepers - not 88 images I was satisfied with, but 88 images that I would point to as special. And that I can do.

Are these five among them? Maybe not.

Agnieszka · June 30, 2009

bdcolen wrote:

Interesting take on this, Angie - but -
First, these are 5 of 1600 images of the wedding weekend, beginning with the rehearsal. I in fact included a link to a gallery of about 140 of those images, including this one of the church interior:

There are shots from the front, shots from the back, shots from down below. If I was going to be up in the midst of the action, I could not simultaneously be shooting from behind the parents. And while it is certainly "easier" and more "comfortable" to sit back behind people with a 200 or even 300 and bang away like a "paparazzi" at a scene 30 feet away, that's not the way I work.

As to the shot that makes you uncomfortable - what it shows is both sets of parents, in the setting of the church, framed by part of the action on the raised platform at the front of the church. I'd say it's pretty clear from the expression on the bridesmaid at the right that you are made far more uncomfortable by my presence than she was To quote from the unsolicited, handwritten note I received from the bride's mother on behalf of the entire family..."You were everywhere, but never 'in the way' of anything."

But to each their own, right? Believe me, I know there are many, many images in those 1600 that are acceptable to me, and mean something to the client, but are not outstanding. The rule of thumb at LIFE and LOOK magazines in the "glory days" of photo journalism was that if a photographer got two "keepers" - images that she wanted for her own collection - out of every roll of 36 exposures, she was doing well. At that rate, I shot the equivalent of 44 rolls of film to cover the rehearsal, rehearsal dinner, getting ready, wedding ceremony, and reception, and should have about 88 keepers - not 88 images I was satisfied with, but 88 images that I would point to as special. And that I can do.

Are these five among them? Maybe not.

Yeah, I saw this photo. I really like it (and love the church), just thought it would be nice to have this pic taken during the ceremony as well (maybe you did, I just didn't see it in that set...).

I kind of knew you would say that the pic (sitting behind the parents shooting towards the bridal party / couple) would be "boring", or a shot anybody would take ... but I just still don't "understand" that shot (and just because she bridesmaid "smiled" doesn't mean that she liked having you there, just my 2 cents ...).

Sounds like you got enough shots of the wedding, I'm sure they liked their set, I just thought there were a couple key shots missing, looking at the gallery of 140 photos.

torags · June 30, 2009

and the winner is.... #5. (#3 ain't too shabby either)

The emotion expressed pours out of the image.

Nice work.

I don't like the church shot at all, too stark. But then as said by a very capable photographer:

"This is not what I do....."

;

frankly I suck at it!

bdcolen · June 30, 2009

torags wrote:

and the winner is.... #5. (#3 ain't too shabby either)

The emotion expressed pours out of the image.

Nice work.

I don't like the church shot at all, too stark. But then as said by a very capable photographer:

"This is not what I do....." ;

frankly I suck at it!

Well, Raggs, first...to each his own. As I often say, we are our own worst editors, and the fact that I like something I took means squat.

But,,,:D ...The church is extremely stark - which I happen to think is beautiful, but given the ornateness of so many churches, obviously many people wouldn't like it at all. I believe the bride choose it for its very simplicity.

As to your picks - I agree - 3 and 5. I like the shot of the cake simple because I love the cake - the grooms mother made it from a photo taken of the bride and groom on Nantucket, where they met when they were both life guards. The couple in the miniature wooden life guard tower - which Mom made - are made of marzipan, and she made those too! Freaking amazing!

dlplumer · June 30, 2009

For what it's worth I love that church shot, although it appears slightly off horizontal.

bdcolen · June 30, 2009

dlplumer wrote:

For what it's worth I love that church shot, although it appears slightly off horizontal.

I think you're right...I'll straighten it.

mmmatt · July 1, 2009

Mr Colen,
First off, thanks for being a part of the forum and thanks even more for being active on this forum. I wish our in-res guys in weddings would occasionally post their work and make some comments on our work, but alas one has 3 posts, one 6, and one 45 so kudos to you for truly being a part of this forum.

As for these wedding shots. Over all I like them and I see where you are going with your documentary style. I don't see the world like you do and that is OK. I think on many of your shots your framing and composition were outstanding as was your eye for details in many cases. the shot of the b&g holding hands while seated and the table, shot from between the chairs comes to mind there... good eye! However if there is anything I didn't like it was the excess of the close wide angle shots. To my eye wide distortion is a great tool but it isn't the hammer... I thought you really showed some nice work overall though and I can see how the couple would be very happy with these photos assuming the other 1400 were anywhere near as good as the 140 I saw.

And for that church... it is hideous! Not only is it stark, white and lifeless, but the knee walls splitting the pews? God forbid you have to sit next to someone you don't know when in church!

Anyways, thanks again for showing us your style!!!

Matt

ian408 · July 1, 2009

I like to see work like this because I feel that it tells a story. I like this style of wedding photography.

The church shot made me think of an intimate wedding shared with those the couple loved. The wedding cake? Perhaps the couple met while working together--what ever it was, they shared it together. The two prep shots; hints of what's to come. And the last, I see two people who are very happy--actually, three if you include the minister (I cannot describe the feeling of marrying a couple but his expression pretty much sums it up).

seastack · July 1, 2009

I like the ones you posted B.D., especially the first, but to me the following are the photos the family will truly cherish. I think the edges of an event are often more interesting than the event itself where things are more unguarded and ... real. I can see how conscious you are of hands, moment and often layers and negative space in these. A great balance between up really close and then back for context and space. Thank you for showing these. Hope you don't mind I posted these links ... and yeah, fix that horizon line would ya ;-))

tortillatorture · July 1, 2009

I think the edges of an event are often more interesting than the event itself

along with the hairsprayshot, this is my favourite, lovely black&white's bdcolen!

also, i agree with Agnieszka, "artisticly" i dont think the first shot are your best.

bdcolen · July 1, 2009

mmmatt wrote:

Mr Colen,
First off, thanks for being a part of the forum and thanks even more for being active on this forum. I wish our in-res guys in weddings would occasionally post their work and make some comments on our work, but alas one has 3 posts, one 6, and one 45 so kudos to you for truly being a part of this forum.

As for these wedding shots. Over all I like them and I see where you are going with your documentary style. I don't see the world like you do and that is OK. I think on many of your shots your framing and composition were outstanding as was your eye for details in many cases. the shot of the b&g holding hands while seated and the table, shot from between the chairs comes to mind there... good eye! However if there is anything I didn't like it was the excess of the close wide angle shots. To my eye wide distortion is a great tool but it isn't the hammer... I thought you really showed some nice work overall though and I can see how the couple would be very happy with these photos assuming the other 1400 were anywhere near as good as the 140 I saw.

And for that church... it is hideous! Not only is it stark, white and lifeless, but the knee walls splitting the pews? God forbid you have to sit next to someone you don't know when in church!

Anyways, thanks again for showing us your style!!!

Matt

Hey, Matt...I do rely heavily on close work with wide angles, and certainly understand why some don't like that style. I will say that in looking through the entire shoot those shots are far from the majority, particularly those shot with lenses wider than a 28, which I think of more as a standard lens than a wide.

The church? Well, that really is a matter of taste, style, and probably where one is from. Being a born and raised New Englander, I am used to, and love, the simplest of New England church interiors - and it doesn't get much simpler than this. :-)

Thanks for looking, and commenting.

bdcolen · July 1, 2009

seastack wrote:

I like the ones you posted B.D., especially the first, but to me the following are the photos the family will truly cherish. I think the edges of an event are often more interesting than the event itself where things are more unguarded and ... real. I can see how conscious you are of hands, moment and often layers and negative space in these. A great balance between up really close and then back for context and space. Thank you for showing these. Hope you don't mind I posted these links ... and yeah, fix that horizon line would ya ;-))

I know I should delete these to shorten the reply -

- but I'm leaving them as I totally agree with your picks.

bdcolen · July 1, 2009

also, i agree with Agnieszka, "artisticly" i dont think the first shot are your best.[/QUOTE]

Thanks - You're both right. It is certainly not the "best" in the bunch, or anywhere near it. I know, I know...so why did I post it? Go figure.

rutt · July 1, 2009

bdcolen wrote:

I know I should delete these to shorten the reply.

Yes, please!

Richard · July 1, 2009

rutt wrote:

Yes, please!

Life is too short to waste time scrolling.

jethibod · July 1, 2009

I love these shots! In particular, the ones of the B&G during the ceremony, and the progression of their emotions - that was super interesting, and pretty heartwarming, too. I'm also a big fan of the reception shots, where it looks like one of the guests was telling a mildly/moderately embarrassing story about the groom, and the bride was laughing, and then in the next shot the groom had his head leaned on her shoulder. In fact, almost every picture with the bride cracking up made me smile - I love the way you captured her spirit.

I would have loved to have seen more of them on the beach, but the ones that were there were pretty nice! And while I agree with mmmatt that the knee walls are a bit weird, I have to say I love the clean simplicity of that church, and it looks like it couldn't have matched the casually elegant feel of the wedding and the reception any better.

Thanks for sharing BD - these are pretty inspiring!

bdcolen · July 1, 2009

Thanks Jen. And the church is what it is.:-)
As to the beach - I would never suggest having a b&g go somewhere for photos, and in fact tell couples that I don't do that kind of thing. But at the last minute they pulled me into the limo and took off.:D It was their show. Looking at the photos from the beach, I see one thing I definitely should have done that I failed to do - precisely because I never do this stuff and wasn't thinking about it:
They said they wanted me to shoot them doing a couple 'high-fives," which I did. What I absolutely should have done was tell them to jump and "high-five;" they would have loved the result.

Live and learn...

B. D.
(Bad Dog!)

torags · July 1, 2009

I gotta stop looking at these posts; I beginning to think in B&W...

Rags

Blurmore · July 1, 2009

The whole, "wedding photojournalist" thing has been hashed out here a lot. Truth be told, I'd say that less than 5% of couples who like a photo journalistic "style" actually WANT a photo journalist. Rule #1 of the photojournalist is to document without affecting the scene. Documentation is fine, for a murder scene, or a riot, or even a perp walk, but people who get married go through expensive and obnoxious rituals and procedures to look "good" I see it as my job as a wedding photographer to make sure they look good. So what if their "good" isn't my "good" hopefully we get that hashed out before they sign the contract, they buy my style and trust that I will produce images of them looking their best. So what about Dennis Reggie? He coined the term wedding photojournalist, but he is also shooting some of the most image conscious, finished, mannered people in the world, people who KNOW what they look like, and how to be romantic.

So far as the pictures you posted go...

1. I would never get this close to a bridesmaid during a ceremony, yes I see that it makes an interesting OOF frame, but basically by being there YOU ARE being a part of their experience. In a positive or negative way? Depends on their feelings about you being there, but the fact that being that close to someone during a ceremony affects the experience is undeniable. I tell couples that even if the officiant allows me to stand on his heels or hang from the balcony by my toes, I won't get closer than 30 feet from anyone in the ceremony. This looks like it was during the rehersal which is cool, but I'm not feeling the value of this framing, it is visually impactful, but I don't feel like it enhances any emotion.

2. This is a shot of a cake, a flat lit shot of a cake, this could be anyone's shot of a cake, it DOES show what the cake looks like.

3. This framing too seems to be documentarian for the purpose of being documentarian, yes her face is interesting, but I'd say the person bent over fixing her would be more valueable than the OOF ear, and chin which is simply unflattering. The contrast here is between young, fresh bride, and what the eventual effects of time and gravity will have her inevitably become in the mirror. Does it document? Sure. Does it portray everyone as they "are" yes, in a manner that they look their best? no.

4.The shot of sundries and undies, nice natural lit shot...would I have move or cropped the can of hairpsray? you are damn right I would, the phone? Probably not it is rather indistinct.

5.
The emotion is fine, its good, it portrays perfectly but I'd like to see his whole ear.

I checked out your shots on their pier, and I understand that "posing" isn't your "thing" but man it would be nice to see everyone's faces and have them looking at the camera. I'm not saying you are one of these people, you seem to have respect for the craft of people who affect a scene as much as you respect people who vow only to record it, but I don't really get people who believe ALL of the magic is in the moment of exposure. That somehow a split second in time can encapsulate, and immortalize anything in its most perfect form for the sole reason that it stops time, that it "freezes" the moment. This weekend I shot a wedding with a woman who used her 70-200 WAY to often during the reception. She was uncomfortable getting into a person's space. She tried to compose everything to the hilt, to make pinnacle out of every bump of a smile, canyon out of every dip of a grimmace. What she missed is BEING there, BEING among the people, reacting to the situation, reflecting the emotion, in her attempt to emphasize every tic of compositional power. I think this is overkill in the other direction, and I think good photography (especially wedding photography) is a balance. A balance of affecting to make timeless images, and being there to capture spontaneous moments that could never be recreated. Like I said I don't believe that you are disparaging those who DON'T, by pointing out what you DO, but I think that good work is in preparation, and shooting with both eyes open, and ignoring compositional rules, and becoming emotionally engaged with that which you are documenting.

When I started shooting weddings, one of the hardest things for me (for anyone really) was to get a group of people together and get them all to look at me at the same time, and in a position that I could see them all. But possesing this skill doesn't mean that all you do is boss people around, I pose a lot of people, I make a lot of people look good, and to my knowledge I have never had anyone say I was bossy. I have had many though say that I made them feel more comfortable and at ease in front of a camera than they ever had before, it works both ways.

Long ago It was explained to me that social photography is more than 50% personality, and the good thing is everyone has a personality, and everyone can be liked (or unliked) for theirs.

bdcolen · July 2, 2009

Blurmore wrote:

The whole, "wedding photojournalist" thing has been hashed out here a lot. Truth be told, I'd say that less than 5% of couples who like a photo journalistic "style" actually WANT a photo journalist. Rule #1 of the photojournalist is to document without affecting the scene. Documentation is fine, for a murder scene, or a riot, or even a perp walk, but people who get married go through expensive and obnoxious rituals and procedures to look "good" I see it as my job as a wedding photographer to make sure they look good. So what if their "good" isn't my "good" hopefully we get that hashed out before they sign the contract, they buy my style and trust that I will produce images of them looking their best. So what about Dennis Reggie? He coined the term wedding photojournalist, but he is also shooting some of the most image conscious, finished, mannered people in the world, people who KNOW what they look like, and how to be romantic.

So far as the pictures you posted go...

1. I would never get this close to a bridesmaid during a ceremony, yes I see that it makes an interesting OOF frame, but basically by being there YOU ARE being a part of their experience. In a positive or negative way? Depends on their feelings about you being there, but the fact that being that close to someone during a ceremony affects the experience is undeniable. I tell couples that even if the officiant allows me to stand on his heels or hang from the balcony by my toes, I won't get closer than 30 feet from anyone in the ceremony. This looks like it was during the rehearsal which is cool, but I'm not feeling the value of this framing, it is visually impactful, but I don't feel like it enhances any emotion.

2. This is a shot of a cake, a flat lit shot of a cake, this could be anyone's shot of a cake, it DOES show what the cake looks like.

3. This framing too seems to be documentarian for the purpose of being documentarian, yes her face is interesting, but I'd say the person bent over fixing her would be more valueable than the OOF ear, and chin which is simply unflattering. The contrast here is between young, fresh bride, and what the eventual effects of time and gravity will have her inevitably become in the mirror. Does it document? Sure. Does it portray everyone as they "are" yes, in a manner that they look their best? no.

4.The shot of sundries and undies, nice natural lit shot...would I have move or cropped the can of hairpsray? you are damn right I would, the phone? Probably not it is rather indistinct.

5.
The emotion is fine, its good, it portrays perfectly but I'd like to see his whole ear.

I checked out your shots on their pier, and I understand that "posing" isn't your "thing" but man it would be nice to see everyone's faces and have them looking at the camera. I'm not saying you are one of these people, you seem to have respect for the craft of people who affect a scene as much as you respect people who vow only to record it, but I don't really get people who believe ALL of the magic is in the moment of exposure. That somehow a split second in time can encapsulate, and immortalize anything in its most perfect form for the sole reason that it stops time, that it "freezes" the moment. This weekend I shot a wedding with a woman who used her 70-200 WAY to often during the reception. She was uncomfortable getting into a person's space. She tried to compose everything to the hilt, to make pinnacle out of every bump of a smile, canyon out of every dip of a grimmace. What she missed is BEING there, BEING among the people, reacting to the situation, reflecting the emotion, in her attempt to emphasize every tic of compositional power. I think this is overkill in the other direction, and I think good photography (especially wedding photography) is a balance. A balance of affecting to make timeless images, and being there to capture spontaneous moments that could never be recreated. Like I said I don't believe that you are disparaging those who DON'T, by pointing out what you DO, but I think that good work is in preparation, and shooting with both eyes open, and ignoring compositional rules, and becoming emotionally engaged with that which you are documenting.

When I started shooting weddings, one of the hardest things for me (for anyone really) was to get a group of people together and get them all to look at me at the same time, and in a position that I could see them all. But possesing this skill doesn't mean that all you do is boss people around, I pose a lot of people, I make a lot of people look good, and to my knowledge I have never had anyone say I was bossy. I have had many though say that I made them feel more comfortable and at ease in front of a camera than they ever had before, it works both ways.

Long ago It was explained to me that social photography is more than 50% personality, and the good thing is everyone has a personality, and everyone can be liked (or unliked) for theirs.

Oh, where to begin...
Picture 1 - It wasn't the ceremony, it was the rehearsal - though if given the opportunity to get close behind the bridesmaids during the ceremony (and with previous consultation with my client, without which I wouldn't do a thing) I'd do the same thing. You wouldn't. Fine. That's why people hire you to do what you do, and I'm sure hire you far, far more frequently than they hire me. What I do is very different from what most wedding clients want, and therefore very different from what most wedding photographers do. That you tell them you won't get closer than 30' feet to the ceremony says it all to me, and really says that this exchange is pretty pointless - but I'm always one to take the bait.

Picture 2 - Yup. It's a cake. I am not and do not attempt to turn it into something it is not. This is what the guests saw. You may prefer to shoot it differently. Nothing wrong with that.

Picture 3 - Sorry, but that's a damn strong image of mother and daughter - for mother and daughter. And it's an image that stands on its own, outside the wedding shoot. You may not like the style; so be it.

Picture 4 - Interesting - someone else was fairly appalled that I shot it - you're bothered by a tube of jell. Go figure.

Picture 5 - Yup, I can see where you'd want the entire ear. But the photo isn't about his ear - it's about her breaking down. And it's also about the composition. Which wouldn't have suffered for including the ear - which I undoubtedly didn't even see because I was watching her face.

You're absolutely right that successfully shooting weddings depends on personality. And it depends upon giving clients what they want in terms of the photographs. What most clients want is, in prose terms, a romance novel, a set of photographs that has little connection to the reality of their wedding, but rather provides them with a fairy tale. And that's fine. I have great admiration for the technical skills involved in producing that story - I don't have those skills, nor do I any interest in doing that kind of shooting.

Finally, yes, what I do is all about the moments, the collection of 1/4 or 1000ths of a second that are the reality of the wedding and the events around it. That's what I shoot. Which, as I said, is why I have no doubt I do far fewer weddings than you do.

torags · July 2, 2009

Hmmm that could have turned to doo doo real fast.

Two views very adequately expressed in a civil manner. I learned a little. Thanks

dlplumer · July 2, 2009

Art is so subjective. "Beauty is truth and truth is beauty" and too many of us think we have access to the truth. None of us do.

kdog · July 2, 2009

This is hands-down the most interesting wedding album I've ever seen. The wide-angle usage is daring and original. I love the wide variety of compositions, and so many of the shots that just ooze emotion. And I don't know whether it's camera technique, processing, or a combination of the two, but the crispness and color balance of the shots is just amazing.

-joel

bdcolen · July 2, 2009

dlplumer wrote:

Art is so subjective. "Beauty is truth and truth is beauty" and too many of us think we have access to the truth. None of us do.

Ain't that the truth. And, as I repeatedly say, we are all our own worst editors. Our photos are our children, and we lack the distance and cold judgment needed to throw the bad ones out of the house.

bdcolen · July 2, 2009

kdog wrote:

This is hands-down the most interesting wedding album I've ever seen. The wide-angle usage is daring and original. I love the wide variety of compositions, and so many of the shots that just ooze emotion. And I don't know whether it's camera technique, processing, or a combination of the two, but the crispness and color balance of the shots is just amazing.

-joel

Thanks Joel. I'm now going to get myself in trouble, because I have said that equipment doesn't matter.

. But I think I have to thank Olympus for the color palette - although the neutral colors in the church sure don't hurt.

A Vineyard Affair

Comments