Trash the dress.....

Well, I was a bit rude, if honest, re the photos I looked at. But some of those others have posted - that I stopped scrolling before looking at, are fine except, as others say, somewhat magaziney.

I've two wedding photos I'd like to post but the photos are still in boxes.
One I took while visiting the Campidoglio in Rome, where a bride and groom were standing outside the chamber where one has to get a short civil ceremony whether or not married in a church as well... that couple looked so incredibly happy it's one of my favorite photos, just a snapshop of them, with a tourist group milling in the space around them, both milling and looking at them. Happiness in the midst of the, er, usual.

Another I took when I couldn't tell if it was an actual wedding photo (someone, clearly a pro or good amateur, was photo'g them) or a shoot for a magazine.. bride in gorgeous dress with very long train, groom with formal jacket slung over his shoulder nonchalantly, backdrop an old building in piazza Navona, atmosphere.. just after rain with sun coming out, the very end of the bride's train trailing off the curb into large puddle. It was the same sunday that the Campidoglio photo happened, so I'm guessing it was another post-civil ceremony photo.

My own wedding photo is a bad (splotchy) polaroid of us leaving the ceremony in our non standard attire, a favorite for non technical reasons.

I hear ya.. so I think I need to elaborate..


When I say " what the camera can do"
what I mean is that it looks like someone is taking a picture simply based on what a setting on the camera will make it look like

VS

A photographer making the picture great by catching that one good moment, smile, glance...etc


does that make sense?

Of course. See all the Henri Cartier Bresson links here.

Well, that's a long story. But the moment is part of it.

He himself, I gather, got weary of all the moment stuff that he virtually defined.

Not to be vague, shewolf, Munkasi and Cartier-Bresson had a lot to do with photo of the moment. And then look at a bunch of the Capa group, Magnum, and so on.

Really, one of my pumps for each day is to look at the Slate magnum photos.. check Slate.com.

Oh, but back on Cartier Bresson, he planned for those moments...

look at the Capa photos...

Lest anyone think I am miss order, I also like Gary Winogrand, who famously broke edges, and others.

Most of us follow photos from what we like and work outwards, though I suppose some start with a class and have a beginning grip. All good, but people don't think to look at a2k art for photo discussions, too bad. If they don't find photo discussions, they could start them, in Art if re others, and in Original Art and Photo, if re yourself.

Look at nimh's present ongoing thread re flickr photos, and look at old threads on art forum that relate to photos...

Well yeah, osso, but those are hardly guys you could have hired to photography your wedding. This thread is more about photography as a trade than as a fine art.

And I know where you're coming from shewolf but knowing the proper settings to get the desired effect is a big big part of the job, in my opinion.

Like the photo CJane posted (one I like a lot, too).

I looked at that one for a while trying to figure out how it was lit. Judging by the water, it was a sunny day. But there aren't any shadows - everything is luminous and that is impossible to do on a really sunny day, on a beach, without any shade. I'm thinking there is probably some nice reflectors and lights being used. The photographer slowed the shutter down just enough to cause the water to get kind of dreamy but not too slow to miss the drops bouncing off the couple.

Sure it was planned and posed and lit and set up and adjusted and fussed over -- it isn't just a happy accident -- but the photo has a nice intimacy and spontaneity too.

I get the photography as trade part. I'm in awe of the technical skill displayed -- I'm pretty darn good with point and click and capturing expressions and even composition, but that doesn't mean I don't get blurry pictures, harsh shadows, dark pictures, washed-out pictures... The technical aspect is important, and its successful implementation shows intelligence and creativity.

I was just looking at a photo of me 'n' sozlet that taken by a pro for a magazine, I just kept seeing more things that he did and marvelling at it. Since I was the subject, I knew about the big white umbrella he used to capture natural light, the different lenses, the different flashes, the zillions of pictures he took of which this was the best, etc., etc. There are reasons people go to school for this; even with the best camera it's not as simple as point and shoot.

Anyway, I seem to have two main problems with the "trash the dress" idea:

1 -- What Noddy said about WHEN do these pictures take place? I can't see them fitting in anywhere during the average wedding day. Not before the wedding, surely, what with the dress-trashing and all. Can't imagine it happening between the end of the wedding and the reception -- the problem of the dress (I guess the bride could chage, doesn't usually happen), and the problem of what the guests are doing (the photos didn't strike me as being the results of a brief photo session).

It seems like it would have to be a whole other day, a whole other photo shoot, and that's fine but seems to defeat some of the purpose of recording the day, the wedding, what happened. (My favorite wedding picture is one that was taken in black-and-white, great composition, lighting, focus, etc., of E.G. and I in the background exiting the chapel and being showered with birdseed [this was during the "rice will make bird's bellies burst" moment] and E.G.'s uncle, this super 50's-looking guy, great face, trying to duck away in the foreground, and a wide variety of expressions and interactions captured amongst the many guests in the frame.)

2 -- CAN these dresses just be cleaned, that's it, back to new? Some of the situations seem tame enough (and also therefore not significantly different from other wedding pictures, especially ones with a nature background), others seem truly dress-trashing. My dress was two layers of silk, satin under chiffon, no way it would have survived a lot of this stuff, dry cleaner or no.

Basically, it seems like too high of a price (and that's not counting actual cost -- this stuff looks expensive) for a picture, to me. The couple can't just get a romantic picture taken, some day that's not supposed to be their wedding day, wearing whatever they want?

There are things I like about the idea, though, especially for people who would otherwise have no use for their dress after their wedding day. And I think you, boomer, could do some great stuff with this idea. I think you would take out the preciousness that bothers me about some of 'em.

I love looking at photos that leave me wondering what all went into it's creation -- especially when it looks natural. Natural is hard!

I'm not sure how "trash the dress" sessions work. I came across it from a gigs posting on craigslist where a bride was looking for someone to shoot her wedding and a trash the dress session (in a different, cheaper dress). In her case there was a some trickery involved, obviously.

I suspect most of them are staged at a date other than the wedding. But really, that's not that unusual -- brides often have studio portraits done in the dress before the wedding, or if their suspicious and they want the groom in the photos they do it after the wedding.

Anyway, I love this one:

Well, we can agree on that, I like it too. There is a natural feel to it, however real that may be.

Me too!

I'm sure people do the separate-day thing a lot, it's just part of what I find offputting, personally (whether it's dress-trashing or more typical formal portraiture). We did really research photographers and having a good one was important (and we were really happy with the guy we got), but it was way more about documenting than about, I dunno, "aren't I pretty?" And if it's not even the same day as the wedding, documenting is pretty much out the window.

If I had a decent scanner I'd post the photo I'm talking about, it's super-cool, I love it. Very similar to the above in terms of interesting old guy's face in the foreground.

... including that the sky isn't the color of the lower face of the building.

that was one of my gripes to self about the bride and dress in the water... the water was so, er, swimming pool finished, or colorized, plasticized. I hate hate hate to notice colorizing first.

And again I think YOU would do great with this, boomer, in terms of the craigslist posting.

I'm well imagining that photo, Soz, as you describe it, it is just the kind of photo I like.
My piazza Navona bride one - surely posed, I watched and photo'd them crossing the piazza - might or might not be on littleK's site, which I can't get into having something to do with its non recognition of my present email address (she and I have tried to fix that.) One of these days I'll get another email addy and see what's there again. I might have cleaned that bride photo out, or it was never there, but instead on the old a2k gallery link.

I'd love to see that photo, osso.

I did scan the photo I have in mind on my old computer, but it's in PDD format and I no longer have Adobe PhotoDeluxe. I emailed it to boomer (I could attach it without opening it) in hopes that she could open it, convert it to JPG, and return. If that works, may send some PM's.

Your photo should be back in your mailbox as a jpeg now, soz. What a great photo! Really fantastic. You are so gorgeous. The grin on your face is priceless.

I'd love to see that photo too, osso.

I'm not applying for the gig. She sounds like Bridezilla.

I just cruise the gigs and services once in a while to see what people are wanting and what the competition is up to.

Heeeeyyyy, I wanna see it!

Article on this in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/fashion/weddings/10trash.html

I didn't like the whole "model as dead body" there any more than I do in regular fashion photography:





Some nice ones too though.

If there's a market, I could definitely see you doing this well, boomerang.