The processing conundrum

As I was uploading proofs from a recent wedding shoot, I began to think about the difficulty of conveying different possibilities for each photo. Even if you create a sort of "look" gallery (which I should probably do), you still have think about tailoring the looks to the photos. Here is a brief example:

I liked this sweet moment that I took at an overexposed setting (which I like to do on closer shots sometimes because it tends to make very flattering skin tones), but darkened up for a more traditional look that you see above. As shot, the photo was a lot closer to that hazy sunny look I talked about in a recent tutorial. So, I exaggerated the effect and added a layer of yellow with an overlay blending mode to get this look:

Personally, my tastes are heading toward a very classic black and white:

Nothing is as timeless as black and white. And to further complicated things, you'll notice that my black and white example above was actually taken a second later, when the groom's arm was no longer bent. So far, you have three very different looks. Then you have to consider the effects of cropping:

An 8x10 crop takes away the white space at the top, like it or not.

A square crop changes it even more.
Or what if you wanted to change the crop, convert to monochrome, and do a romantic pink split toning effect:

Or you can crop it even tighter:

I've always been a fan of close crops, so I like this one as well.

The moral of this story is that making processing decisions can be as hard as taking the photo, and communicating the possibilities can be problematic. Which would you choose? If you were the client given nearly 500 proofs, how well would you do envisioning the possibilities?

So you want to be a wedding photographer... (part 1)

I meant to do at least one post last month devoted to getting into the wedding photography business, so I may as well forgo the August Monthly Special and pursue some posts I didn't do last month. For those of you thinking you might want to do wedding photography professionally, I thought it might be helpful for me to give you some of my own experience and advice.

Let me preface this by saying that business is a foreign world to me, which is why I became a professor. If you want to learn about opening a store front, dealing with tax issues, and coping with complex legal issues, you'll have to look elsewhere. If you want to hear a real-life experience rather than an exemplary perfect-world scenario, then this post is for you.

Consider all options

Before I delve into the wedding photography experience and advice, let me scare you away from listening to me with my story of graduate school:

I was finishing my B.A., doing quite well, and the department chair interviewed me and told me he thought I should go to Yale:

"I'm not sure that's what I want, and I doubt it will work well for my fiancée if she wants to keep taking classes."

"Well, she'll just have to understand."

"Well, that may be how your marriage works, but it's not going to be how mine does."

After that exchange, the chair only referred to me as "Michelle's fiancé" and wrote me off (until he ended up hiring me 8 years later). So if this illustrates anything it is that I tend to be impetuous and outspoken. My approach to grad school was not about finding the best school, but about where I wanted to spend the next four--uh--make that seven--years. "What schools do they have in Seattle?" I asked a friend. "Which one of those is the best?" So I went to UW. It was great. I loved it. I probably got more personal attention than I would have at Yale. The professors were happy with me, and as I neared the end of my M.A., all the professors were telling me I should go do my PhD at some Ivy League school (one went so far as to contact some friends at Princeton to set up a scholarship). All the professors were basically saying UW wasn't good enough. All except one. He said, "A pedigree will help you for maybe 4 or 5 years. Ultimately, what matters is what you produce, where you can be happy and productive." For me, that place was Seattle. So I stayed and chose that professor as my dissertation director.

Wow, that was a long story. The point is, I have never regretted those decisions. I think you should factor in your whole life (quality of living, family, etc.) when making decisions. But do I tell my students to follow my example? Hell, no! I tell them what I did and why it worked for me, but then I tell them to go to an Ivy League school. I'm not trying to set myself up as a model to follow, but I don't mind giving conflicting advice so the student will consider all options.

Enjoy photography as a hobby until that just isn't good enough

I've been taking photos since I got my first camera at age 7. I have always loved photography, but I never once considered it as a potential source of revenue until about 10 years ago. Really. Not once. I was too busy singing/dancing/acting and teaching French to even realize that I could get a degree in photography. There are tons of holes in my knowledge because I am a complete autodidact with photography. But I'm in good company because most of my favorite photographers were self-taught.

Three things got me wanting to earn money through photography:

1. I needed the money. I knew that being a professor wasn't going to be lucrative, but I thought it would be better than this.

2. A real go-getter friend who liked my photography decided that she wanted to do photography too. Within a month, she was earning money every weekend as an apprentice for a local wedding photographer. I thought, wait a minute! I inspired her but she's the one making money at it? What's wrong with this picture?

3. I met another go-getter who already had a line of postcards and was working on a gallery show even though his first time behind the lens was only six months earlier. I was in South Beach curating a show about design, and I got invited to a swank dinner with people way out of my league like Maury Moss. Fun taste of an alternate universe. But what inspired me was this 20-something golden boy rep for several design lines who just decided he wanted to do photography and so he did. It's horrible to admit it, but sometimes thinking "My stuff is better than that" can be a good (not very charitable, but good) source of inspiration.

That was the last straw. Suddenly, doing photography without profit wasn't enough. I still lack the business acumen of the go-getters, but that's just not who I am.

If you want to photograph people, start with portraits

Unless you take the apprentice route, I think you'd be crazy to start with weddings. I can't advise you on how that works other than to say that my go-getter friend just started contacting photographers until she found one that would take her on as an apprentice. Being a dynamic and smart beauty queen doesn't hurt either.

If you want to go it alone, do portraits. In my case, I did them for free or for meager wages to build up a portfolio. This was pre-business card and website, all purely word of mouth. The fact is, I decided early on that even when I launched as a real business, I would never do a bridal fair or do advertising. I'm still a word-of-mouth business.

Do you really want to do weddings?
If I could have made good money doing individual portraits—especially of kids—I probably would have never done a wedding. But almost no one was hiring me for individual portraits. Group portraits, yes, but not individual ones. If there was a good market for portraits, I didn't find it. Weddings, however, are happening constantly in Utah. I'm practically at the epicenter of a marriage factory where I live. And you can charge ten times as much as a portrait sitting to do a wedding. Tempting if you want to earn money. But there are good reasons that you charge more, the top two being:
1. They are super high-stress. Mess up with a portrait and you can re-shoot. Mess up with a wedding and you have just screwed up the most important event of someone's life. No that is what I call stress.
2. They take a ton of time. It's not uncommon for me to shoot for 10-12 hours on a wedding day. That's not so bad if you charge by the hour, but I charge a flat rate and then do whatever it takes to get the job done right. The sweat-drenched suit I forgot to drop off at the dry cleaner's today will back me up on this: it's hard, tiring work. Don't expect to sit down for a leisurely meal with the guests. Do expect to run around looking for great candids until your feet hurt. And when you're done, you've got to sort through all of your photos. For me, that usually means taking about 2,000 photos (more on this in the next post) and then weeding it down to a more manageable 400-500. Next I have to do some very basic retouching and then post the photos online, at least loosely organized by category.

Is that really the kind of stress and workload you want? Really?
OK, then. Stay tuned for the next post...

10 wedding or engagement Photos I love to hate (but sometimes do anyway)

Yes, it's overdone (and I even toned it), but I did it anyway and I like it. Read more to find out why.

My wife tells me that I hate these photos because I see them all of the time, whereas most people don't spend so much time around wedding photography. It may be true in part, but sometimes the psychology of the shot rubs me the wrong way.

I wanted to recreate all of my pet peeves with the help of a Barbie and Ken bride and groom, but my daughter doesn't own a set and I'm not about to seek them out in Paris, so descriptions with have to suffice. Sorry. You will just have to imagine the photos.

But before I mock, let me say that (almost) every one of these photos has its place. I have done and will continue to do a few of them, because I think that detail and nuance can make all the difference. In other words, this isn't entirely about flat-out rejection. It's more about pausing to look at what a photo says.

1. The" kiss under the veil"
The recipe: Bride's veil covers both bride and groom as they kiss.

The problem: Too little veil and it looks silly. Too much veil and it looks like they are 6-year-olds building a fort or that they're in Africa trying to hide from mosquitoes carrying malaria. And then there's the kiss...too much and it makes the viewer feel like a voyeuristic perve.

A solution: The reason I like the photo at the top of the post is that I took it in December and I like how it shields them from gently falling snow. I also like how the folds of the veil hide the lips in just the right way. The kiss is not too much, but don't think I didn't have to delete some that were before ever showing them to the clients.

2. The "swan princess takes a bow"
The recipe: The bride (usually in a very full-skirted gown) sits on the ground with her gown spread all around her. She looks up demurely as the photographer snaps a shot from above.

The problem: The pose is so contrived that only a prima ballerina can get away with it. Unless you're wearing toe shoes, don't go there. The angle makes the head appear larger than the body which further gives a cutesy childlike look.

A solution: I can't think of one. I have never done this shot and don't think I ever will.

3. The "American Gothic couple reluctantly holding hands"
The recipe: Couple faces camera straight on about four feet apart, outer arms to the side, inner arms extended in a sharp diagonal line to hold hands in a symmetrically rigid manner. Expressions are blank as if posing for a 19th-century photo with heads held in vice determination. This is usually done as an engagement shot.

The problem: You're getting married, people! Ostensibly, you are in love! Yes, it looks good from a compositional standpoint, but it also looks like the photographer cares more about composition than message.

A solution: Smiling is OK. Having the couple look at one another is OK. Just remember that this is for an invitation to a wedding, not a geometry class.

4. The "playful piggyback"
The recipe: The bride (or usually, bride-to-be) hops on the back of her (future) hubby for a playful piggyback ride.

The problem: If the guy isn't strong enough, or is about the same height/size as his fiancée, she will end up looking fat. If the guy is more than a few years older than his fiancée, it will look like he's really robbing the cradle. If it isn't in your personality to do playful things like piggyback rides then the pose will look forced. Finally, this pose can also say "my clingy fiancée is strangling me."

A solution: In my opinion, the only way this shot works is if you take it just after she has jumped on his back or in some other natural moment that suggests real playfulness and not a pose.
In the example above, ideally her arms might give his neck some room, but I still think it works because 1. the couple requested the pose (hence, it was natural for them), 2. the groom is a lot taller than the bride and can easily carry her, 3. their smiles were natural because they were still laughing about her trying to jump up onto his back.

5. The "look at my ring!"
The recipe: A variety of potential poses, the two most popular being the engagement shot where the girl places her hand on the guy's chest in a way meant to show off her trophy of a ring OR the wedding shot of the two hands together with the rings showing.

The problem: The engagement version of the shot is such a cliché that most people mock it. The message seems to be "Look at this trophy I just scored. I'm totally a ten cow wife." What is meant to be a symbol of love and commitment can easily turn into a display of materialism.

A solution: Let's face it. We are all complicit in making the ring so important, so I understand the desire to showcase it. For the engagement shot, it's a matter of restraint. Show it, but not like you're a game show hostess. Be subtle. For the wedding shot, I think a close-up of the hands works great in the context of the whole story, and obviously the ring ceremony is something to capture.

6. The "shoe fetish"
The recipe: In the version that really bothers me, the bride's shoes are photographed perched on a nice occasional chair in all of their glory.

The problem: I know how much women like shoes, and this might be one of the cases where I hate the shot because I've seen it a thousand times, but still...doesn't it also just emphasize the materialistic side of things?

A solution: I prefer shoes on feet, preferably in a way that has more story to it. I know people who hate any shoe shot whatsoever, but I have done photos that I like of the bride and groom's feet with the bouquet next to them—it makes the story be about the couple (and also has more elements than just a pair of shoes on a chair) rather than about just an object.

7. The "lurking groom"
The recipe: Bride in front. Groom way in back and out of focus.

The problem: It's a fine line between interesting composition and a message of isolation and detachment. The groom could end up looking like a stalker or an afterthought, either way, not the best message.

A solution: The expression on the bride's face and the posture of the groom make all the difference. You need to look at it on a case by case basis. If the bride looks too stern, you're in trouble. In most cases, I would say that keeping the bride and groom close is a safer bet.

8. The "like a virgin"
The recipe: A variety of possibilities ranging from the ever-popular cleavage shot to a boudoir pose featuring cleavage and/or legs as the bride gets ready. Sleeveless or off-the-shoulder gowns are a must. Poses can be ripped from Madonna circa 1984 or from many bridal magazines.

The problem: Fashion photography and wedding photography should not (in my opinion) be the same thing. Fashion photography is meant to sell clothes by creating striking and provocative poses. Angry brides, brides with vacant soulless stares, brides with contorted postures, etc.—these are the brides that populate magazines, but your wedding isn't there to sell clothes.

A solution: If your bride's gown is showing off her décolleté, you don't need to emphasize it even more by taking shots straight down her dress while she leans forward. It's like the ring shot—keep it subtle and sophisticated. Think Grace Kelly rather than Lady Gaga. If you do a "getting dressed for the wedding" shoot, steer clear of anything that belongs in a Victoria's Secret catalog.

9. The "back-alley make-out"
The recipe: The woman has her back against the wall, the man leaning into her, possibly kissing her.

The problem: As an engagement shot, this can make recipients of your invitation feel awkward. It can easily look exhibitionistic rather than romantic, or predatory rather than passionate.

A solution: Watch the position of the legs. Does it look like too much is going on? Think twice about using an actual kiss. Keep it in playful mode.

10. The "this is all about me and my Photoshop filters"
The recipe: Bride and groom are there as props. This is all about drama and dramatic angles. The drama is heightened by the use of multi-colored gradient filters or by cgi effects ripped from films like 300 or Lord of the Rings. The more surreal the better.

The problem: If the people become only incidental to your oeuvre, then you I guess it has become the photographer's wedding. The oh-so-tired "Lord of the Rings" look is dramatic, to be sure, but it can often lead to photos that look like they were taken on Mordor. If "with this ring I thee wed" turns into "One ring to rule them all," you've got a problem.

A solution: It's like jewelry. Even if the trend is to wear a dozen strands of pearls and/or wrists full of bracelets and/or rings on nearly every finger, you probably wouldn't do that on your wedding day. Wedding photography, in my opinion, shouldn't be so trendy that you would be embarrassed to look at it in five years. If you want to do something really trendy, do it for the engagement pics, but for the wedding, it's better to use effects in moderation.


What do you think? What are your own pet peeves when it comes to engagement or wedding photography? If you've been married a while, what photos have stood the test of time? which ones have not? Comments?

I'm back! July Monthly Special: Weddings

Beautiful Polynesian couple kissing by the Salt Lake City Temple

OK. So my short break turned into a two-month hiatus during which I began to wonder where I ever found the time to do a blog in the first place. One of the many things keeping me busy was wedding season, so I figured, Why not do the July Monthly Special on weddings?

If you're not interested in wedding photography, you will still find posts on other topics this month, including my first interview in a long time and who knows what else? I will be in Seattle and then in Paris during this month, so you can expect some photography or inspiration from there.

But back to weddings...You have no idea how much I want to do a post on the worst engagement photos ever or on some of my pet peeves in wedding photography. But I try not to be mean. Still...I might just have to do a not-so-mean version.

Although I have no actual data on the matter (which never stops me from making wild assertions—just ask my wife), I bet Utah is the wedding capital of the world and BYU is the epicenter. If you know Utah Mormon culture, you're aware of the cliché of 21-year-old LDS men fresh off their missions, hormones ablaze with virtuous lust, zealously in pursuit of an eternal companion (usually blond) while studying for their pre-med, pre-law, or pre-MBA future. If your only contact with "Mormon" culture is Big Love, you should know that you would have to go to some freaky fundamentalist splinter group compound in Southern Utah to see polygamy and that the people won't be nearly as attractive. If you want a look at the equally strange monogamous mainstream, get your hands on a copy of the poorly-executed Mormon comedy "The Singles Ward" and then read the satirical Mormon mommy blog "Seriously, so blessed!" which is seriously, so accurate a satire of a certain Utah type that readers will either be offended or die laughing depending on their sense of humor.

This month, I will give some advice to photographers who want to do wedding photography and will do a tutorial (that can apply to other things than weddings) on making your own Photoshop templates.

And what about those of you who want to participate by posting something on your blog and then linking it back on this post? Why not share your favorite or least favorite wedding photo? Or do a post about what you love/hate about wedding photography. Go ahead and be opinionated. I will.

I don't cry at weddings

Or post photos from them on my blog. So why make an exception now? Well...have you ever found yourself unexpectedly moved by something you might normally characterize as too sentimental? Tears welling up against your will? Anyone who knows me will tell you that I generally loathe romantic comedies (except 500 Days of Summer, which I saw at Sundance—and loved. It opens in July here in the U.S. Go see it). And the only way you'll get me within 10 feet of a Jane Austen novel is if you add zombies. So it came as a total surprise when the father of the bride got my tear ducts working overtime at a wedding I shot yesterday—and all to the theme song from Disney's Beauty and the Beast no less. I didn't even like that song (or movie, for that matter) back in 1991. And yet...

Maybe this is what happens when you have a four-year-old daughter and suddenly find yourself relating to the father who still remembers the bride as that little girl who loved nothing more than to dance around the living room with him to the Beauty and the Beast soundtrack. And so, saccharine lyrics notwithstanding, when the father took out an artificial rose (straight from the Disney store) and then danced with his daughter to that song one last time before ceding both daughter and rose to the groom for the second half of the dance, I was moved in spite of my inherent cynicism.

And because June is the month for weddings, I give all of you softies this image of love and romance. And for you cynics...trust me. You had to be there.