There's no such thing as an ugly bride...

<p>...just a bad photographer! If only I had a pound (not a Euro!) for everytime a colleague said that to me. It does raise some interesting thoughts though doesn't it. I photograph a lot of weddings - 60 in 2011 - but if am completely honest with myself, I would never put an image of an unattractive girl (however well photographed) on my website or in a show album. Am I right in doing this? I am currently of the opinion that a wedding is, in many respects, a fantasy. I've heard colleagues say that I am doing myself out of work because I am excluding potential clients. In my head, I beg to differ. For example, in the UK there is a famous department store (M&S) and a few years ago, they promoted a range of women's clothes for "normal" women through TV and poster campaign. It was a huge marketing mistake and their sales plumetted. It would be interesting to hear your opinions on this. Oh, and I dont't just photograph gorgeous brides - I get the whole range - and often the plain janes are a lot easier to work for without the airs and graces!</p>

<p>Beauty is only skin deep.<br /> When I get hired it's my job to create beautiful photos. This is accomplished through various tools, good use of lighting, posing and composition, establishing a rapport that I can work with the client so as they look natural in front of the camera. <br /> I do sometimes use Photoshop but not all the time.<br /> I took an executive portrait a few weeks ago. We got along real well, like we're friends, good rapport. I said to him after the brief session, "I can take ten years off you with my computer." He smiled and said, "make it twenty!"<br /> My recommendation, I get hired to make people look beautiful. That's what I do and so should any professional photographer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would agree that you should put your best work on your site and in your portfolio. In <em>your </em>opinion. How you judge your own work is really whats in question. Do think that an attractive brides <em>makes</em> an image that would otherwise be so so? or do you feel that an unattractive bride ruins a well composed, lit, and creative image? For example David, would you have posted the "First dance at Thorton Manor" if the bride was 1/2 again as wide? </p>

<p>IMO, there is no easy answer. Even an extremely overweight person can be shot from angles that flatter them, and even though nobody would ever think that they are supermodel twigs, it can show off your knowledge of how to make someone look their best. This treatment demonstrates your skill, not just your good fortune (of having enough highly attractive brides to fill your portfolio ;-) ), but marketing these days is less about demonstrating your skill (and therefore value) than demonstrating that you are worth wanting. aka. the "if hot chicks want you than I want you" principle... M&S obviously proved that, but made a huge mistake in misjudging their industry and their target market.</p>

<p>Best work is not always equal to prettiest bride.</p>

<p>Best work for me is purely the feel of the shot. If I like it, I don't care who is in it. </p>

<p>Having said this, I don't shoot 60 weddings per year, so I don't have quite that many to choose from.</p>

<p>I think the art of photography would be in big trouble if only attractive people made beautiful pictures. </p>

<p>Photogenic does not always apply to pretty faces. I know a lot of girls who are so much prettier on even the basic point and shoot photographs than they are in real life. Then there are those who look ugly when captured in an image. For selling purposes you should perhaps have very attractive and middle of the road attractive within your gallery. A pretty face always goes further.</p>

Thank you so far for the interesting responses. However, I think many of the answers proceed from a misconception. I am

not trying to provoke moral outrage but merely suggesting well photographed pretty brides are good business.

<blockquote>

<p>... but merely suggesting well photographed pretty brides are good business.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Of course they are. But you are <em>also clearly suggesting</em> that they are <em>better</em> business than an equivalently well photographed not-so-pretty bride (see below, and your original post), which is where some of the moral outrage comes from. I personally must agree that there is a greater <em>mass appeal</em> to the same pic w/ a pretty bride vs. w/ a non-pretty one. I doubt <em>anyone</em> would say different.<br>

But the difference in marketing appeal/rational has <em>zero</em> to do with actual photography. Just like the guy on a billboard wearing CK boxer briefs has <em>zero</em> to do with the underwear (or does the type say something about comfort and durability?... and stain resistance? ;-) ). My point is also that your website (and mine) has little to do w/ our photographic skill --while we obstentisvly point to it and say 'look what we can do!', that's not the real reason it's there (or else a free smugmug would do!). Instead, it is about promoting our businesses in the most effective manner we feel we can. <br>

I think the danger comes in your original statement "<em>I would never put an image of an unattractive girl (however well photographed) on my website or in a show album." </em>And that kind of absolute 'policy' is degrading to both your brides, and yourself. IMHO. Essentially, your statement could be rewritten as "<em>unattractive indivuals need not seek placement, you are worth less to me then your prettier peers</em>" because a photographers highest valuation comes from what the model can do for them. You could even (at this point of rationale) justify charging prettier brides less, because you anticipate they'll earn you more business.<br>

I'm not saying you do that/ have done it, or have thought it out that far, but obviously that degradation is working for you so far (as it works for Victoria Secret, and the entire fashion industry -- Retail stores here in the US have been found guilty of discriminatory hiring practices - based on attractiveness --guess what they sell...), but if you hold to that kind of policy, you can never say you haven't sold your soul. (sorry, but you asked for MO) Ask that swiss company who PSes real models heads and hands onto perfect CGI bodies, I know what they would say... (something w/ the line "responsibly generate shareholder value")</p>

<p>I would put on your site beautiful images. The age and size of the bride is not relevant to making an image beautiful IMHO. I have posted many images of 2nd marriage older brides and I book quite a few older brides. I also post images of brides and grooms who are not perfect. I post what I shoot because I think all brides are beautiful and I pride myself in making everyone look thier very best.</p>

<p>I personally think that when brides are looking at my work they will see beautiful images of real people. I want them to know that no matter their size or shape I can make them look amazing.</p>

<p>When you choose not to do this you limit your own scope. I personally would hate for you to be my wedding photographer. I judge you have a bias to beauty and thus would have a hard time making a plus size woman look amazing. The realitiy is it is much harder to make a bride who is not perfect look great... Brides with fantatic faces and bodies are easy to photograpy if you have some skill. Making a plus size older bride look amazing takes talent.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"you can never say you haven't sold your soul"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What a remarkable thing to say. I hope not; I'm talking about a working business model not a morality crusade. Just pick up any magazine or view any TV ad. QED.</p>

<p>Marcus wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But the difference in marketing appeal/rational has <em>zero</em> to do with actual photography. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was inevitable that someone in this discussion, and likely many, would make an argument about the value of a photograph independent of its use. But no photograph is inherently good or valuable. A photo's value -- like that of any other good -- is derived from the use to which a person puts it (including simple, casual viewing of the photograph, which is basic "use" of it).</p>

<p>A photo may be "beautiful" to many (who use it by looking at it for pleasure or inspiration), and useless to others. </p>

<p>If I understand David correctly, he is merely positing that some images have greater potential for successful use in marketing than do others, depending in large measure on the apparent attractiveness of the subjects therein. It is certainly true that a photographer can make subjects appear more or less attractive by use of skillful composition, posing, lighting, and processing, hence my use of the phrase "apparent attractiveness." </p>

<p>A simple and well-proven rule of marketing is that images of physical beauty sell goods and services by encouraging people to linger on the images and associate beauty with the brand. People associate characteristics with brands, and then decide whether they want to be in a group of people with those characteristics. This is mainly superficial, which is why some people find it offensive, but it is nevertheless true, which is why bothering to be offended by it is a waste of energy.</p>

<p>An image is valuable for a <em>use.</em> The OP is discussing the use of images for self-promotion. Images of attractive people are generally more valuable for that use than are images of unattractive people, all other factors being equal. </p>

<p>So I guess I'm left wondering why David bothered to post this at all? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not trying to provoke moral outrage but merely suggesting well photographed pretty brides are good business.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you just want to point out to people that you are aware of a principle of marketing? What's the value of the opening post? Do you want help making a decision of some kind? If so, what?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did you just want to point out to people that you are aware of a principle of marketing? What's the value of the opening post? Do you want help making a decision of some kind? If so, what?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The value of the opening post is to have a discussion about what constitutes good advertising for a successful wedding business. I am always open to new ideas and ways of doing things.<br>

I have taken many, many lovely photographs of average looking girls and I have always declined to use them for advertising. I know several other full time pros Cheshire photographers and they all have the same opinion. Interestingly, only about 1/3 of my brides tend to be gorgeous. This concurs with my theory that weddings are a fantasy for many people.</p>

<p>QED doesn't apply, you don't shoot for Vogue, or CK, or anybody like that (though perhaps you aspire to it?). I doubt you've ever made a TV commercial (though I admit, I could be wrong!) - the applications are completely unrelated, and therefore the existence of one does not prove the validity of the other. You are a wedding photog, not a high fashion photog.</p>

<p>As a wedding photog, you shoot for your own clients and your own business. Obviously what you are doing is working, and that makes it justifiable (to you), but what you are doing (intentionally, and with forthought) is <em>also</em> demeaning the women you shoot (whom you regard as too unattractive to use for publicity). Just as the Abercrombie & Fitch's refusal to hire unattractive store employees was a calculated, intentional, <em>and demeaning</em>, but helped carve a distinct & distinctive 'image' for it's brand.</p>

<p>As far as talking about "<em>a working business model not a morality crusade</em>", that rationale is the same the Enron guys made. Some pretty big finance houses make the same distinction recently. Separating morality from business practices is great for business. Of course doing so is often to the detriment of the client (and, in the end, taxpayers, at least in the US ;-) ). <br>

If you <em>choose</em> to follow the lead of businesses who's practices hurt clients and bystanders alike, then you <em>should</em> accept the moral responsibility for that impact. I'm not saying you shouldn't do that (it's up to you!), just that, by doing so, you <em>may have</em> 'sold your soul'. There's a reason the expression exists, and it's got nothing to do with a guy w/ horns and a pitchfork. </p>

<p>BTW, it isn't a swiss company (referred to in my last post), it's swedish:<em> </em><a href="http://www.styleswept.ca/2011/12/hm-admits-to-using-virtual-bodies.html">http://www.styleswept.ca/2011/12/hm-admits-to-using-virtual-bodies.html</a> (discussed in Portraits & Fashion forum)</p>

<p>Marcus, there is a significant difference. Firstly,I am not hiring anybody; the photos already exist. Therefore, nobody is losing out on an employment opportunity. Secondly, whether you work for Vogue or the television or a small photography business, the principle is the same: Sexy photos with pretty people sell products. And Marcus, I photograph a lot of weddings. And as I have said before, only the minority are stunning brides. Now get off your high horse.</p>

<p>Near where I live, there a black wedding/studio photographer who uses his wife's photo on his business card. I know he loves her dearly, but she's a really really BIG woman - very "churchy", "crown" and all. The first time I saw his card I almost fell down. Now, as much as he loves his wife, I would hope that he would look for the most photogenic person he's ever shot for his first impression to the world - his business card. I would think, that the business card, website, or whatever one uses to showcase their talent would be reserved for ones very best work - whatever that may be.<br>

Just my humble opinion.</p>

<p>LOL okay, okay! Listen, we all understand that <em>'Sexy photos with pretty people sell products', </em>and <em>'sexy brides sell wedding stuff'. </em>As I pointed out, your approach is working for you, but I think you mistakenly attribute it to the attractiveness of your 'chosen' clients. I think <strong>that</strong> has <em>nothing</em> to do with <em>your</em> success.</p>

<p>Many of your images could easily be nearly identically effective with a bride 5 or 50lbs heavier. At some, one would have to look very closely to even guess at things like facial features and BMI.</p>

<p>I think that of course you should use the images <em>you think</em> are the best in your portfolio, if they turn out to be only of attractive individuals, so be it. But to <em>act preemptively</em> on the opinion that "<em>I would never put an image of an unattractive girl (however well photographed) on my website or in a show album.</em>" IS demeaning to clients. You ARE <em>specifically</em> saying w/ that statement that their worth to you is less than that of a pretty or sexy bride. Certainly you understand that? </p>

<p>It's kind of ironic that some of your gallery pics are clearly of less than stunningly attractive brides (though most are!). The images are still great, and simply don't emphasize their 'less than perfect' features. ...guess you haven't sold your soul just yet ;-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You ARE <em>specifically</em> saying w/ that statement that their worth to you is less than that of a pretty or sexy bride.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is absolutele and utter rubbish. I value all human beings equally. I value all my clients equally. I run a successful business which needs advertising that works.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But to <em>act preemptively</em> on the opinion that "<em>I would never put an image of an unattractive girl (however well photographed) on my website or in a show album.</em>" IS demeaning to clients. You ARE<em>specifically</em> saying w/ that statement that their worth to you is less than that of a pretty or sexy bride.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, guys, come on. He's not demeaning less attractive people in general. He's not saying anything about their value as human beings. He's just saying good-looking faces sell better than less-attractive faces. There's no serious controversy about this fact...</p>

<p>...which is why this whole thing feels like a troll. He still hasn't stated a useful <em>purpose </em>in posting the thread. Just having a "discussion" is of zero value unless it resolves a specific problem or leads to the discovery of new useful information. He never intended to accomplish either goal.</p>

<p>As far as I can see, the only possible outcome of posting the original comment was for some people to take it personally or make it personal. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/meh.ro5722.jpg">Please</a>.</p>

<p><em>Sexy photos with pretty people sell products', </em>and <em>'sexy brides sell wedding stuff'. </em></p>

<p>This is half-true. Speaking solely about the effect of images in your portfolio, etc., ... brides hire you because they can see themselves or aspire to see themselves, in your photos. Sexy sells better to men, who are much less likely to make the decisions when it comes to weddings.</p>

<p>Depending on the prospect, they could be just as turned off by an ugly bag in a shot or a bad manicure.</p>

<p>I'd say, show what you want to shoot. If what matters to you is pretty brides, then show them. If the story is the only thing that matters to you, then show the best stories you have.</p>

<p>Dave,<br>

If you see beautiful then it stands to reason that you have to also see ugly....and every degree in between. That being said....i don't think your wrong...your not saying that you don't or wont photograph unattractive brides. Your just placing the brides you feel meet your standards for your web site. I see it all the time in medical sales...be it drugs or equipment. <br>

The argument can be made that the first requirement for a sales position is how good you look in a suit or how pretty/curvy in a skirt. I always thought it would be how well you know the product....till a sales woman told me you can teach anyone to learn a product....looks on the other hand.<br>

So i would have to agree with you.... </p>

<p>I’m confused. It’s your advertising, your web site. Why are you under an obligation to change or add to it for each wedding… beautiful bride or ugly. I feel an obligation to take great photos at every wedding. I work hard at making the customer look good. The other day I had a very overweight father whose belly looked disgusting. I cropped the photos to make him look good. I think a good photographer can make anybody look good. Pretty brides will understand you take photos of all customers … so they won’t care. Ugly brides might hire you because they see you have the skill set to make them look better.</p>

<h1>There's no such thing as an ugly bride...</h1>

<p>You obviously have not watched "Bridezillas" on WETV!<br>

"Ugliness" is not just a "physical" appearance, but a "spiritual" one. It has been said, "As a man (woman) thinketh, so is he (she)." It's very difficult to "disguise" your true self. If you're "ugly" on the inside, it'll express itself outwardly eventually. "Bridezillas" is a perfect example of this.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is absolutele and utter rubbish. I value all human beings equally. I value all my clients equally. I run a successful business which needs advertising that works.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry, but stating that a "<em>however well photographed" </em>individual will NOT appear in your portfolio based <em>solely</em> on how attractive they are is directly contradictory to the claim "<em>I value all my clients equally." </em>You cannot fail to recognize the discontinuity. Client valuation is based (in nearly every business) on what they bring to your business, whether it's billings, prestige, other clients, a stunning portfolio, etc. Clearly you recognize the marketing value of 'hotness' (they do!), so truly valuing an ugly client the same as a 'hot' client is impossible (and frankly, unimportant!), not letting that difference in valuation affect your professional performance is something quite different, and easily done. <em><br /></em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

In the end David, it's your business, run it how you want. There are photographers who make an outstanding living, but<em></em> wont lift a camera to photograph any woman over 120lbs, they are great at what they do, and you routinely see their work on the pages of magazines filling checkout stands. THAT works for them, THIS (clearly) works for you.</p>

<p>There is NOTHING wrong with using your personal judgement on the decision of which images to post, and which to not post, especially when considering the health of your business. But the simple idea that only attractive clients need be considered for a portfolio, is naive, and frankly ridiculous. Sure, it's <em>easier </em>to make a good looking gal portfolio worthy. But as I said, I don't think you'd need to draw this line in the sand to make your business successful, your work is good enough that even were it filled with less than ideally attractive young women, you'd be able to be very successful. </p>

To bring this back to marketing, I find a mix of the traditional "stunning" naturally pretty girls that don't need a stitch of

makeup to stop traffic along with beautiful gussied up brides works well for me. A combination of nice clothes, well done

hair, and well done make up combined with great posing can make just about anyone out there look fabulous. Lucky for

us as wedding photographers, most of those elements are usually present. I wouldn't put up photos that are

uncomplimentary to the bride. Remember even a thin modelesque bride can look bad if she is standing with terrible

posture, and a heavier set bride can look breathtaking in the right dress and posing that is flattering. Many of the images

my brides have mentioned they adore are shots of my "normal" brides. So keep it looking nice, but do be open to the

idea that someone who doesn't seem like a potential model can still look beautiful in their wedding photos and be great

for a portfolio shot.

<p>I choose photos for my portfolio based on the visceral first reaction I have to that image. If a photo makes me do a fist pump when I am editing, laugh, or otherwise have a strong emotional reaction, it gets considered for my portfolio. If it doesn't raise the hair on the back of my neck, regardless of how gorgeous the bride is, how well I nailed the exposure, how tack sharp it is, it doesn't make it. <br>

I think you are going to raise a lot of hackles (maybe that was the idea?) with a statement as black and white as 'I would never put an image of an unattractive girl (however well photographed) on my website or in a show album.' </p>