Does seeing each other before wedding affect the emotion?

<p>Simon--I think you are right about it being a boy/girl thing. As Theresa says, the people praising First Glance sessions online are all brides/girls. You don't find guys being concerned about the session or the processional shot.</p>

<p><em>It's regarded as bad luck for the groom to see the bride before the ceremony starts. [...] Some people would regard this as close to putting a curse on them.</em></p>

<p>And these people are living in a developed country? I've not met a couple who thought not seeing the bride in wedding dress before the ceremony was more important than getting through the day with a minimum of stress. They usually seem happy with the suggestion that formals be done before ceremony to avoid time pressure later on. Or they may claim this tradition is important, but then the groom takes a peek at the bride anyway.</p>

<p>I have mixed feelings about this issue. I had always heard that it was bad luck for the couple to see each other before the wedding. (Technically, I guess that meant anytime after Midnight of the previous day.)<br />When my daughter got married, her photographer preferred to shoot their wedding photos BEFORE the wedding - about an hour or two before guests started arriving.<br />He said it was best because everyone was in their hair & makeup & clothing was fresh, etc....Also, sometimes, during the ceremony, people cry and then after the ceremony, they can look a bit puffy due to the tears.<br />In the end, it was the right thing to do - our photographer captured some priceless photos, as did the videographers.<br />He did clear out the church & kept the doors closed so that they met privately at first - he gave them a few minutes alone as a couple, (even without him) and then he shot them as a couple & individual shots, and then added bridal party, family, etc....<br />One of my most precious memories of the wedding video is that the videographer shot them seeing each other in their dress/tux, through the church glass window. Beautiful! <br />I know photographers who will do it either way. I guess it just makes more sense to take as many as possible BEFORE the wedding though. <br />Welcome to PN & Best Wishes!</p>

<p>My turn!<br>

Okay, I always talk about the timeline with the client, what do they want, how big the bridal party is, how many people in the nuclear family (parents/grandparents/siblings-spouses and children of)<br>

Then how much time we have to photograph.</p>

<p>As is often the case, if there is 90minutes to 2 hours, I can get lots and lots of great pictures and perfect portraits done...rarely is this the case, more often it's 45 minutes, and at one location, where I refuse to work at again, 15 minutes.</p>

<p>As for being slanted for the photographer...yes and no. Dane Sanders and a host of others will describe that the photographs before mean the second they walk back up the aisle as a married couple, they can go about enjoying their party rather than take time away from the gathering of friends and loved ones to take pictures. I explain that the day is theirs to enjoy, the pictures should capture that, but portraits take time, time that is spent before or after, I let the clients decide but I push for before, and not once had anyone regret.</p>

<p>As for bad luck and tradition......well, Jewish faith, Hindi, and a slew of other religions have no particular bug-a-boo about seeing each other before hand. I also would like to point out that at some point a tradition must begin, whether in 2010 or 1010 or just plain 10, it started where it didn't exist before. I want my clients to be happy and I, like Vail. would rather have some extra time to get things done later if needed, then absolutely no time because we are squeezing 100 poses into a 40 minute window of the appetizers and introductions.</p>

 

<p>I want to ask Maryann and William one question.</p>

<p>Do you know who Charles J. Lewis is?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As is often the case, if there is 90minutes to 2 hours, I can get lots and lots of great pictures and perfect portraits done</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this would be a bit of an imposition on the couple on the morning of their wedding, when they have plenty of other things to think about, without giving up 2 hours to photography. Getting married is an physically and emotionally exhausting thing, and I think such a long photo session is going to add to that exhaustion.</p>

<p>I generally find 15 - 30 minutes is more than enough to get the portraits done. 40 minutes is better to allow for a range of locations and ideas, but if you haven't got some fantastic portaits in that time, then you never will. I find most couples are happy to give up 20 - 30 minutes of their time on the wedding day for portraits, but it's rare that they want to give more than 40 minutes. We can get a lot of great portraits in 15 minutes, if that's all the time we have. Like <a href="http://www.edinburghweddingphotos.com/html/?html=1&p=15">this one</a>, we had exactly 15 minutes for a lightning photo tour.</p>

<p>We are being told all the time that they are really grateful for the fact that we were speedy and made it painless, and with a groan that 'the photographer at the last wedding we were at took hours'.</p>

<p>My sister went to a wedding where the photographer was taking so long that she headed off to a nearby pub for a couple of hours. When she got back, he was still at it. Apparently, after all that, the images got destroyed somehow, and he had to reshoot it a couple of weeks later.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I want to ask Maryann and William one question.<br>

Do you know who Charles J. Lewis is?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I do not. Please explain I am curious.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I googled him after you asked. He's a marketing expert? </p>