'larger' brides

I posted a query about a rogue videographer earlier and this prompted some

criticsm of my style in that I failed to show the bride in a more flattering

light with some suggesting that I use PS and liquidize or hide her behind her

husband.

 

After many years of shooting what I see at weddings as sympathetically as

possible sometimes such 'in camera' work cannot be done at the scene.

 

This poses several questions - after hundreds and hundreds of weddings am

I 'old fashioned'?

 

Do larger women expect to be hidden behind grooms or flowers?

 

Should not the bride always be there up front and on display?

 

Should I not risk semi photojournalist shots in case she is seen for what she

is? A larger wonderfully happy bride?

 

The bride was not embarrassed and clearly was up for all of the shots.

 

But after the reaction to the thread I'm not so sure now.

 

Am I out of date at 50?

 

Kevin.

i have an ongoing debate in another thread where i got pretty upset at how people/photographers treat "over-weight" as a visual problem. some people suggested to "hide" the bride or to "cover up her flaws" etc...

 

my point is this and it's just my point of view and thoughts: yes "mainstream" society (although 60% of people are overweight by government standards) still usually view a "thinner" frame as something to strive for as a standard of beauty....and all i can say is from a more "ethno-centric" perspective...i feel artists who are trying to "portray" a person when comissioned by the client...should consider "how the client wishes to be portrayed" and not instill our subjective standard of beauty upon them. yes - most people want to look thin....but i personally know many women and many other cultures where their standard of beauty is not aligned w/ mainstream american's ideals...they don't feel a double chin or bigger belly is something to hide....again this is "my" experiance....i also know others that would do anything to look aneroxic...

 

so take it for what it worth my perspective about beauty is beauty is purely "subjective" therefore if a bride is happy w/ her figure wether it be considered "thin" or "large" than i'd say "toss the liquify" and shoot straight on....it's what matters to her and for that matter the groom too ;)

again - what one may consider a "flaw" as someone else put it...another may find beauty...

I was taught, from day one, to try to minimize weight if it is excessive in either the bride or the groom or any human subject. There are posing tricks for this, even when the bride IS up front. Turning her 45 degrees to the film plane is one.. having her weight on the foot away from the camera is another.. holding her flowers to the side is another.

 

I have also had the groom stand so that his black tux slims her. Is she "hidden?" No. Not at all.

 

In other places you can do things... Get up high, have the subject lean forward at the waste.. all basic things to flatter the subject. I took portraits for a senior that were very well received. What you did not see in the photos is the subject was leaning over at the waste.. his back was nearly level with the floor (creating a perspective similar to getting up on a ladder) and you did not see the extra chins etc.

 

Flattering your subject is your job at a wedding or any time you take photos (especially when getting paid). I was taught at the very basic end to do the above things to flatter a subject who may be over weight.

 

White makes you look bigger and black makes you look slimmer. Some guys know this. Most women know this. All photographers should know this.

No, I'd never hide a bride on her wedding day. I think if she didn't want to be seen, she wouldn't have gotten a photographer in the first place. There ARE flattering ways to pose people, though, which I'm sure you're aware of. Any woman, including myself at 103 lb. would appreciate that, I think. Hiding the bride behind a groom is demeaning to her, IMO.

yes there are ways to use lenses to "diminish" or to "exaggerate" (and photogs should have this in their skills) but i don't think that Kevin is asking the "how" to do this. I think he's asking thoughtfully asking and contemplating (something that is "socially" responsible) "to what extent"...and again i will say, who are we to instill our "subjective standard of beauty" on to another? yes there is "common sense & intuition"...i think we can tell when some are "ashamed" or a bit "insecure" with "who they are physically" but there are some who may feel very secure and proud of themselves "physically" be that 400 hundred pounds or 90...and it's not for us to judge...so before whipping out the "puker tool" or the "liquify" maybe we should find a way in our consultations to be thoughtful to explore who our clients feel about being "portrayed" what they would want minimized or maximized....

There's a difference between positioning the bride to flatter the image and hiding the bride. There's also a huge difference between someone who understands posing/lighting and uses that information to create flattering images....it's called professional photography. One of my personal favorite glamour shots was of a BBW posing in an isty bitsy teenie weenie swimsuit....what sold the shot was the confidence, happiness, attitude, and sassiness that came through her body language and expression.

Forgot to add. The image of the BBW was a high-key image done in the studio on white seemless paper and studio lighting. Simply having a sassy BBW with an attitude of confidence and happiness doesn't mean that anyone can capture that image on film. You can also have a Victoria Secret runway model to photograph and that will not guarentee that you'll get beatiful glamour shots.

Meg:

FWIW I shoot film so I don't get second chances in Photoshop. You either have flattered your subject at the film plnae or you have not.

 

In doing this work, I am not projecting my idea of whether or not someone is good looking. I am simply doing my best to flatter the subject at the film plane, which is why I get paid to do the work.

I have always strived to minimise the impact of the camera on the subject as I was taught but the question was how far do you go if you cannot do it at the time? In the UK we cannot photograph before the wedding so time is limited, most churches don't allow photography so there will always be times when you are in a hut with bad lighting and no space and it's raining -everything you learned at university comes into play plus experience so you do the best you can.

 

I played around in PS last night and have a thinner bride but that is not what she was though LOL and I wouldn't offer up the image.

 

Wide range of views coming out.

Nancy - (professionalism w/ skill of shooting in consideration and i agree a professional know's this) my point is what is "to flatter" or what is "not to flatter" - it's not always what "we" assume...(probably most the time it is as judged by "mainstream" standards but some don't need a photographer to hide their chin or waist and some wish they had a bigger bum etc...in the other post - some people were very rude about the "physicality" of the bride...but as the photographer (Kevin C.) pointed out - she was happy w/ who she was - so he felt...

btw - i wouldn't use photoshop to make a bride appear significantly "thinner" or "bigger" - it's not my gig...i wouldn't be the photog for them. and my comment about liquify or pucker was in response to Kevin's reference to it....really (for me anyway) it's about "portraying the subject at the film plane" the way they would desire...within my personal "style" and "limiations" as mentioned above....

If a bride expresses concern about ANY physical feature, I will do my best to downplay that

feature in portraits. If she doesn't say anything, I assume she is happy and comfortable with

who she is, and I photograph her in all her happiness and beauty. It is not the photographers

job to decide that someone is too "large", or that their nose is too big, or that their smile is

funny. It's my job to capture the best possible expression of that person.

That's a tough one Kevin! I generally try a get a sense of my clients' image of themselves, some don't like their teeth or size of their whatever. I find Wedding images are often about an ideal - how people want to see themselves or their relationships or events of their day. I remember covering a rather relaxed wedding of an attractive young couple. On occasions I show the B or G one or two early shots to help them relax and feel more comfortable about being photographed all day long. I did this and the bride to be exclaimed I look fat! A little shocked but not down for the count, I asked as sensitively as I could, what about the image made her think that? She told me that her arm looked fat and her chest looked flat. I reassured her that I had plenty of ways to capture images just the way she wanted. I took another shot, gave her a peep and we were back in business.

I generally like to try and uncover those issues a little earlier but it was better than when she was opening the album cover.

About being old fashioned I'm not sure, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe it doesn't matter.

PS Concerning that young bride I did liquify a couple of shots - just to be on the safe side ;-)

 

I hope this helps

Rest assured, if I get a bride with a big honkin' nose, I'll likely not do any closeups, in profile, with a wide angle lens. The more important question is; what lens, angle, and lighting scheme will I use? Perhaps that makes me traditional.

may i suggest an idea for all photogs making a money from shooting; put together a signed questionaire that must be filled in by your bride and groom where they have to tick some boxes as answers. add a few question about if they would like you to take an artistic license in the portrayal of their bodies or if they would like to be shot as seen. this means there are no disappointments and you also have a signed statement of sorts.

It is a very rare bride that doesn't want to look thinner, if she is heavier, or doesn't wish her non-perfect physical attributes weren't more perfect. Sometimes she will tell you about these things--other times she won't. Then there are the ones that have a completely false self-image. Unfortunately, since this is a sensitive area, which should be approached cautiously, I try to intuitively pick up on the bride's self image and may tweak my shooting accordingly. I may be more aggressive in-camera and in post, or not, depending on what she has or hasn't told me and my guess about her self image. I may "cover" myself with alternative angles. I certainly take steps if I can. I personally wouldn't bring up the topic on my own as some people may be offended--so I wouldn't use a questionnaire item of that sort.

What if the B&G are both large, AND they request me to make them thinner. What techniques are available. Thanks in advance!

The most common complaint I have had from Plus Sized Brides is that they were "spilling out of their dress". All the posing tricks in the world will not hide a dress that doesn't fit right or flatter the bride.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

Paul, there are posing/positioning tricks to prevent or minimize the "spillage" along with some simple PS techniques to minimize some features while you brighten, or maximize others.

 

ws1088,.... What techniques are available? That's the issue, there are many that a knowledgable pro can pull from. The more experience and understanding you have, the more tools you can pull from your tool box. I think some people are concerned with what is good taste and people ettiquette, which is a valid concern, rather than photography....but the issues are different.

There are many levels of proficiency at this Kevin. If you study portraiture, you can learn the tricks of the trade. Suggesting that "wedding photojournalism" doesn't have such rules, is rather naive. The top PJ shooters understand camera angles, flattering angles to shoot, and persepctive, a lot more than many would believe.

 

The cake cutting shot in question:

Take a ruler (measuring stick) to your monitor, and measure the bride's width across the frame in inches or centimeters. Now measure the groom's width. She is 3:1 in frame area. Now place her behind him, but don't block her body in any manner ( you are only placing her farther away). Now he is 3:1, and she looks small. This is using 2 dimensional perspective, to your advantage. Not knowing this, and making brides look fatter will not make you popular. So "this" is the answer to your question.

Thanks Edsel

 

yes I 'got' your comments yesterday but as I say she could not 'fit' into the space the groom could! The reverse shot was not possible due to room. Oh and she doesn't look fatter, I was there. He was about a third smaller - sorry. The side by side shots bear that out.

 

But thanks for your comments, after 30 yrs I still don't mind listening.

Techniques for slimming a large couple are pretty much the same as for slimming the bride. Don't use wide angle lenses and/or shoot from very close to your subjects. Turn the bodies, get a higher perspective on them so their bodies "fall away" from the lens. Use directional light if you can to create definite ratios that help slim. If he is in a black tux, you still try to put her slightly behind or behind him (without hiding her) because black is naturally slimming and white is the opposite. Use hands, veils and flowers to help hide areas like double chins or facial/body width. Even walls, doors, gates and other artchitectural features can help partially hide problem areas if skillfully integrated. And pay attention to the specific attributes--could be the chin area, or tummy area or hips, or upper arms. If it looks (through the camera) like you can improve--then take the time to improve.