Jennifer and Bryan - Backyard wedding

tenoverthenose

A few weeks ago I had the chance to shoot a wedding someplace other than Yosemite (for once) - a completely decked out backyard wedding. Good times and so many unique details created by the couple. Tons more on my site (link below).

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.

CrystalBelle

Ok I dont know how this is going to come across, but for me, if I was the bride, I would cringe at the back fat in those shots. I don't think she would mind if you were to liquefy her down a bit. It seems as if her dress was way too tight?
Other then that, I love the pictures and the one of her getting down, is really fun!

tenoverthenose

Fair point, and I will address it as carefully as possible.

My general take on a wedding is to present it as it happened. My clients know this going in, before they hire me. I make it clear that I do not "alter" images (primarily I mean move pixels around to represent something that wasn't there). Of course this gets into a fairly gray area - wouldn't it improve the image to make a few changes? Maybe... probably. The big issue to me is that I don't know how people feel about themselves. I have to believe (or hope) that someone looked out the outfit/dress they planned on wearing to their wedding a in a mirror and though, "that's the one". Surely they had to take a look at themselves in what the decide to wear. So if they are happy/accepting of their real life appearance, is it my place to alter that appearance without their approval? To me, it seems like I am saying "sure you look good and all, except for this ..."

All that said, if a bride asks me to do what I can alter an image, then that is something that I will take on at that point.

urbanaries

tenoverthenose wrote:

Fair point, and I will address it as carefully as possible.

My general take on a wedding is to present it as it happened. My clients know this going in, before they hire me.

I agree with you Patrick here and have the same approach.

The big issue to me is that I don't know how people feel about themselves. I have to believe (or hope) that someone looked out the outfit/dress they planned on wearing to their wedding a in a mirror and though, "that's the one". Surely they had to take a look at themselves in what the decide to wear.

From a woman's perspective, there is this interesting phenomenon lately with wedding gowns and this "backfat" issue. I've encountered it several times (with brides of all sizes), and used to have a similar approach you did: "It is what it is." But the more I see it, the more I realize that women are not video-ing themselves from the back, with their arms in motion when they try these dresses on...they're looking at themselves from the front and side, standing still. Not sitting, dancing, breathing. If their friends or seamstress is seeing this in the dressing room, they are doing them a disservice not telling them to go a size up. And wow, what a difficult thing to do when your sister/daughter/best friend tries on the dress that lights her eyes up.

I spend a few minutes liquefying the worst offenders nowadays, it doesn't take me much time, and honestly...they won't ever know. But they won't look at your photos with embarrassment and disgust.

tenoverthenose

urbanaries wrote: »

But the more I see it, the more I realize that women are not video-ing themselves from the back, with their arms in motion when they try these dresses on...they're looking at themselves from the front and side, standing still. Not sitting, dancing, breathing.

Well said. As a totally different issue, I think it's time we banish strapless dresses. Okay, back to the touchy point at hand. I think you're spot on with what you said and it gives me some food for thought on my processing. My goal is always to serve my clients and perhaps I am too hesitant to make them look their best. I tend to operate under the idea that my clients are secure with themselves. At the end of the day however, no matter my thought or intentions, I am not a woman and do not share that insight.

To make matters worse, my wife and I looked through these images for a while talking about the ones the make the bride look her best before posting any of them on my site and we came to a sad conclusion. Most photographers would not post any of these images on their site at all, because it shows a "less than perfect bride" and would not be deemed blog-worthy. What a load of crap.

So the other side of the coin is that even with the choice of clothing, I still find this wedding, this bride, this groom, this story, all of it - beautiful.

urbanaries

tenoverthenose wrote: »

So the other side of the coin is that even with the choice of clothing, I still find this wedding, this bride, this groom, this story, all of it - beautiful.

+10000! I think she and the dress are both gorgeous. And the intimate wedding, the feel of family you get from your photos...all beautiful!

Your comment about other photogs and posting only certain brides in their portfolio...I think that's small-minded and self-defeating.

I just spent $200 on an article of clothing I would normally never buy. Because the girl in the ad had a curvy figure and red hair just like mine, I could visualize myself in it. It was attainable, so I plunked down the cash despite my better judgment!

Would never have looked twice if the girl looked like Paris Hilton. Just making a point.

CrystalBelle

I understand and I'm not saying maker her a size 2..... just from a woman, even a confident one, you want to look your best in wedding photos. I have to believe that if she knew of this back fat issue she would not have liked a photo for all to see.
She is the same size in the one of her dancing, yet she looks great, but in the one where you are shooting her back with her husband giving her a hug, the photo is amazing but I might be a tad embarrassed to view this photo with the bride if I was the brides friend/mom/husband because it is obviously there....

Would you not heal a big red zit on the nose? That is all I am saying, just smooth it over, she is gorgeous, curvy and fun, you can tell that from the other photos.

tenoverthenose

Excellent points, I really appreciate your insights!

PrettyKitty

I just got married in April and I was one of those brides in the strapless dress who ended up with the backfat issue in some of my pictures. It's not that I bought the wrong dress size, it's that I gained a little weight at the end because of stress! You have to order a dress MONTHS ahead of time, get it altered nearly a month ahead of time, and hope it all works out!

So that said, I was glad my photographer noticed the backfat and avoided taking shots of that. If it was unavoidable, my made of honor would try to "tuck it in" sorta.. ... and then where that wasn't possible (like the bouquet toss) she did liquify it a little. I ended up picking the least offensive picture for the album, where my arms were in a position that stretched out that area.. hahaha...

But yeah, I would recommend SLIGHTLY fixing it if it's real bad, but otherwise just show your bride. She can't get mad at the way she looked.. lol... she just may request a digital 'lift'! -

urbanaries wrote: »

I agree with you Patrick here and have the same approach.



From a woman's perspective, there is this interesting phenomenon lately with wedding gowns and this "backfat" issue. I've encountered it several times (with brides of all sizes), and used to have a similar approach you did: "It is what it is." But the more I see it, the more I realize that women are not video-ing themselves from the back, with their arms in motion when they try these dresses on...they're looking at themselves from the front and side, standing still. Not sitting, dancing, breathing. If their friends or seamstress is seeing this in the dressing room, they are doing them a disservice not telling them to go a size up. And wow, what a difficult thing to do when your sister/daughter/best friend tries on the dress that lights her eyes up.

I spend a few minutes liquefying the worst offenders nowadays, it doesn't take me much time, and honestly...they won't ever know. But they won't look at your photos with embarrassment and disgust.

mmmatt

Touchy issue and I totally relate to Pat's point of view. It is said that men are more visually stimulated then women and I believe that to be true, but women are far more critical based on visual appearances. I have a bride that I shot last year who had a lot of loose skin under her neck. My favorite shots and the ones I was most proud of were her laughing and showing her true self... these are always my favorites. I felt as though I showed her inner beauty which is my personal goal regardless of what a bride looks like walking down the street. Even though what I saw in these photos was very obvious to others I have shown them to (some are in my laptop portfolio that I show at contract meetings) she was not happy with them as much as the ones where we were actively hiding her neck. I'm not affraid to show these images of a less than perfect bride because these images, maybe better than many of my pretty bride images, show what I am about and allow me to show other brides that there is beauty in all of us weather or not it is easily captured in a photograph. It is more obvious when an image isn't all cluttered up by physical beauty! Given a choice I would have all supermodel brides, but the reality of it all is that I won't. I think it is important to show what I can do with many different types of brides and it is important that the brides I have adopt this attitude going in if they have physical insecurities. Even the hotties take note of this because many beautiful women feel that their inner beauty is often looked over.

as for backfat? Yeah, it isn't great to look at and on certain brides and I may avoid or not deliver those kind of shots, but if I get some emotion like Pat is showing here, that in my mind supersedes a less than perfect body.

My .02

Matt

Mox

Backfat schmackfat..beautiful work, beautiful light. And that is one hell of a backyard!

mpaulie

Mox wrote: »

Backfat schmackfat..beautiful work, beautiful light. And that is one hell of a backyard!

Yup, love love the backyard lights and dancing shot. And as far the backfat issue goes, I think it would be the photographers job to TRY and avoid shot/angles that are very bad for a bride but it's not your job to erase 10 or 15 pounds. You're telling a story with the photos which means some of those bad angles are going to exist in some shots.

Most I do as far as changing pixels is removing zits or cloning out a distracting exit sign or something like that.

met

Nice. I #1.

I think even the skinniest of brides may have some backfat issues in strapless dresses. You have to cinch the suckers up so tight just so the dress will stay up and Thelma & Louise don't pop out. I don't see any harm in tweaking the worst offenders so that a bride still looks like herself, but can look at her pictures without only seeing "the backfat".

Just a little note in #3, you can see the little dress hanger strap poking out under her arm.

Ed911

Here's my 2 cents for what it's worth...

If they need a little help...I don't see anything wrong with doing a little of this or that...

It might just be me, but I see the liquify filter as just another tool...not so different from running actions that change skin tones to white, greenish, or paper brown...remove facial geography, and generally offer the client a somewhat rendered version of themselves.

Ooops...starting a rant here...sorry...

Good point CrystalBelle...thanks for bringing it up...

l.k.madison

met wrote: »

Nice. I #1.

I think even the skinniest of brides may have some backfat issues in strapless dresses. You have to cinch the suckers up so tight just so the dress will stay up and Thelma & Louise don't pop out. I don't see any harm in tweaking the worst offenders so that a bride still looks like herself, but can look at her pictures without only seeing "the backfat".

roflrofl

I love that careful wording there!!

And the garbage about the shots not going on the website because the bride is "less than perfect" oh whatever. That's hogwash. Only Angie and Heather get beautiful brides for EVERY single wedding, we all know that.

My first bride was on the larger side and I'd use an image of her in a heartbeat for my fb/portfolio, whatever. The brides that don't look like models need to see a "plain Jane" on a blog every now and then. Brides of all sizes, shapes, colors get married every day - not just the gorgeous ones.

tenoverthenose

I love how this thread took of in it's own organic discussion ~ lots of good thoughts and ideas in here!

Personally, I've had my fill of brides with up-do's and strapless dresses as being the "standard" wedding attire for brides. Just because someone in a magazine did it and the saleslady is trying to sell you on that image doesn't mean that you have to (or should) do that. I've had some really beautiful women recently buck this current trend and they look wonderful - brides in original looking wedding dresses, brides in non-white dresses, brides not even in wedding dresses. I just love it when a woman can choose what is right for her and express herself on her wedding day.

urbanaries

tenoverthenose wrote: »

I love how this thread took of in it's own organic discussion ~ lots of good thoughts and ideas in here!

Personally, I've had my fill of brides with up-do's and strapless dresses as being the "standard" wedding attire for brides. Just because someone in a magazine did it and the saleslady is trying to sell you on that image doesn't mean that you have to (or should) do that. I've had some really beautiful women recently buck this current trend and they look wonderful - brides in original looking wedding dresses, brides in non-white dresses, brides not even in wedding dresses. I just love it when a woman can choose what is right for her and express herself on her wedding day.

HEar Hear! Let's see those non-traditional brides, Patrick! ivar

tenoverthenose

How's this Lynne?

urbanaries

tenoverthenose wrote: »

How's this Lynne?

I saw this on your blog, thought it was hilarious

This was just the rehearsal, no? What did she weary day-of?

tenoverthenose

No this was just the rehearsal.

Here's a very unique one I haven't blogged yet - lots of frilly pink lace!


Bride with hair down (very rare for me)


Repurposed dress that became a wedding dress (I think she told me she spent about $30 on it)


The short & lacy


Something that was totally their own


Homemade leather shawl


Jeans (can't see in photo) and a comfortable top


I could did further, but I've got to get back to work!

mpaulie

Damn Pat, you're killin it.