Posing a large bride further from the camera than others? What does this mean?

I am doing my second wedding in a month. The bride is tall, large-boned and overweight and the groom is short and

stocky. I have been researching the posts on poses that flatter both the b&g and noticed lots of recommendations

to pose the bride farther from the camera than others in the shot. What does this mean and how much farther? 6

inches, 1 foot? Just slightly behind others?

You may wish to look at a book or two on photography. A large object further from the lens will appear smaller with a wide-angle lens. Since you did not put the deminsions of "tall, large-boned and overweight" into your note....it is near impossible to give you a really 'good' answer. Aside from putting the groom in the bride's lap for a humor-type image, you will have to (maybe) practice with a few images before the wedding. Do you have any ""tall, large-boned and overweight" friends?

The answers you reference, refer to (artistic) perspective, i.e. how it appears to the viewer`s eye: the objects further

away appear smaller.

 

But there are other factors which impact upon this perspective, such using a wider lens can enhance the effect. Also

using a (slightly) higher (than usual) camera angle will most likely be useful in this circumstance to create a greater

visual perspective effect.

 

If you wish to use this (perspective) method: as to exactly how far back the Bride is posed relative to the others

varies with the local conditions, but I think `subtlety` and `in combination` would be good key thoughts to keep in

mind.

 

What I mean is:

 

. Subtlety such that the Bride is still communicating with the group and is part of it.

 

e.g. Bride and Bridesmaids in horseshoe, Bride is centre, horseshoe shaped toward camera. Or diagonal of Bride

and Bridesmaids, Bride at Rear.

 

. In Combination, such that you use other posing elements to ehance the image, as well as the advantage of

perspective.

 

i.e. you would not pose the Bride farther back and then elect to stand her square on to the camera, for example.

 

WW

Ah! Look at the times of posting. :)

 

WW

You may also want to talk to the bride and groom, bring some examples...

 

I had one couple who sounds similar to yours... Bride was larger boned, and stocky. She was also 3 inches taller then her husband (without her heels on). Groom was shorter and stocky. I started to arrange them as William suggested and then was promptly told to stop... They both said that they were comfortable with their physical forms, knew that one was taller / stocky, and they wanted the photos to reflect that honesty, not some made up or tricked out version of reality.

 

Different couple - during our first meeting the bride said "I'm overweight and I want you to pose / hide / edit / whatever to make me look thinner."

 

So - there isn't one set way to handle it, other than to talk to the couple and see what they want.

 

Dave

With an overweight bride it is important not to photograph her fully facing the camera with a large expanse of white. Having part of her front in shadow or blocked by a large bouquet or a ring bearer or flower girl, having her stand 3/4 to the camera or blocked in part by the groom will all help. Unlike with thin to normal individuals where you position the arm away from the body to emphasize the waistline, I have the arm against the body to cut a large area into two smaller areas which has a slimming effect.

 

With different height individuals outdoors it is possible to find a slopping area to give the groom more height or poses where the bride crooks her neck to rest her head on his will make her appear shorter or less obviously taller. Seated their height difference will usually be less apparent as well. It is not a matter of fixing a feature as showing people in their best possible manner. A lot of photographers get away with poor technique when shooting skinny brides but it catches up when they have a heavier bride who is understandably unhappy with their pictures.

Usually it is just slightly behind others--more like 6 inches, a foot. This is because it would be too obvious otherwise, unless you are doing some of those artsy shots where one person is way in front or behind than the other. It also helps to use the groom as a 'blocker', as has been mentioned, and to turn the bride so she appears slimmer. Also, as others mentioned pay some attention to perspective--wide angle or telephoto, and angle.

 

For instance, for the formals, rather than the normal pose, you can have the bride slightly back of the groom, and put her arm through his elbow. Elbow partially blocks her body, and if she turns slightly into the groom, she should look a bit slimmer. Just an example.

I just wouldn't TELL her you're going to use a w i d e angle lens! She probably would not understand, and may get offended!

Thank you for all of your replies. I am just now getting back to this place- 3 toddlers. So I should or should not use a wide angle lens? I have read differing opinions.

> So I should or should not use a wide angle lens? I have read differing opinions. <

 

Well what happened I think is, on this thread here, you asked a specific question, about placing the Bride slightly behind. This will, as explained, create a perspective that makes her look smaller.

 

That perspective effect is exacerbated with the JUDICIOUS use of a wide angle lens.

 

Generally what I mean is: not too wide angle; and the group not too close to the camera; and the camera elevation at bust level; and the Bride not at the edges of the frame; and the Bride not square on; and the lens not having much barrel distortion.

 

Much easier to have a practical class than put into words. : )

 

BUT: many (including me) would GENERALLY caution against using ANY wide angle lens when photographing a larger person, because, a WA lens can exacerbate the width and or stumpiness of any person if due care is not taken. Especially care with camera angle & camera elevation. This is due to, ``Foreshortening``

 

To see this effect, (magnified), use a wide angle lens and take a photo, reasonably close to a young child, looking down on them, vertical view.

 

And then kneel down (shooting at waist level) and take a photo of a large adult, just so the subject standing fills the frame, vertical view.

 

The child will have a big head and very tiny waist and feet.

 

The adult will have fatter than necessary arms and bust (if a female) and their belly and perhaps hips will appear larger too.

 

I think your confusion might be because: here, you asked a specific question about placing the Bride behind: but as a general rule, wide angle lenses require more careful use with all subjects, and especially with larger people.

 

WW

William, thank you for that reply. (You are a night owl OR is it a morning person? ;=) Taken your description, can I safely assume large family or wedding party formals would be okay with the WA given that they will be some distance from me and the bride would be in the middle flanked by other family members (who are also large, ah hem)? Thank you, William and Nadine, for specific examples for me to pre-visualize.

A general insomniac: plus the Olympic Games . . .

 

***

 

IMO on a 20D, 30D, 40D, it is ``safe`` to use to 17mm for a group (FoV equivalent to about a 28mm lens of a 35mm SLR), if you keep the lens at bust level and be careful with the arrangement of the group.

 

There are many elements: (like Nadine mentioned the elbow locking with the Bride behind the Groom . . . ), as another example: realize that with bigger people, especially in summer clothes, when the ladies might be wearing sleaveless dresses etc (exposing the arms), it can often be wiser to arrange the group such that a man is the outside person: this is also allows a better arrangement strategy for women`s exposed arms and larger hips and also men`s larger waists, if you get their hands correct. . . this is another example.

 

(When we put on weight: in men it usually goes to the waist and for women usually to the bottom and hips)

 

Personally, as a general rule, I am not keen to use any wider than 17mm on a 20D or a 28mm on my 5D.

 

I can successfully use wider lenses, and I believe I am aware of the traps: but I would rather be concentrating my efforts on other matters and know I am reasonable safe with the distortions the wider lenses give and therefore put my efforts into posing, arranging, framing and lighting.

 

That might be labelled as a conservative approach, and it should be recognized that I still shoot many formal group arrangements: that does not mean the shots are ``stiff starch and boring``, but my clients do want the family and more formally arranged shots. These formal group shots and for inside the Church, or Reception, are usually the only times when I use a lens wider than 35mm (on a 5D).

 

I like to minimized risks, I especially like to minimized risks when working under the pressure of time.

 

The same rules of distortion with a wide angle lens apply to the candid / photojournalistic cover: IMO one of the best examples of (continuous) control of the (very) wide angle lens, and by a photographer who seems to have 100% ``photojournalistic`` style, is found in the work of Emin Kuliyev.

 

eg:

 

http://www.pbase.com/eminilia/aja_and_alberto

 

REF: http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00MUtk

 

WW

WW, thanks so much for your detailed replies. This bride wants only the formal, posed shots IN the church so I am

learning to be creative in that environment (I grew up in this little church and its pretty ugly- IMO). I will

take your advice as I will have many other things to think about and don't need the additional concern of whether

the optics of my lens can outperform my skill, neither of which are...

 

I think I got my original question answered about posing- Bride slightly behind but still in communication with

the group. I am going to have to try this one out first. Thanks so much for all your help on this little journey

of mine. Amy (BTW, I got the ball, finally!)

WW. Just checked out your link. Amazing!

:)

 

You will do fine, I am sure.

 

It is truly a wonderful journey: a pleasure for me to be part of it.

 

***

 

Emin has a very fine creative ability with the wide angle, IMO.

 

I am not sure if it is in that link, but I have seen one image of his where the B&G is partly inside an elevator.

 

I believe Emin is quite tall. I understand for that particular shot he just raised (a 5D I think) with a 14mm (I think) above his head with the expectation of the result.

 

``Expecting`` the result is the genius of it: it is brilliance akin to deliberately ``shooting from the hip`` which was / is used by some street photographers.

 

Regards, William.

WW. I am truly inspired!

WW. I hope you get this soon! I decided that I need to rent a lens for the ceremony and the large group shots. I've got a 50mm 1.8, 75-300 f4-5.6 and the kit lens. I will be using the 50mm lens for the majority of the small, 3 or less, groups but I will have to go back so far to get the whole party/family group with that lens that my flash will be virtually useless. I have two softboxes that I could set up but with only 1 hour allocated for family and wedding party portraits I don't know if I want to mess around with it. And obviously flash won't be the best for the ceremony. What do you think about renting a 24-70mm f2.8? I have a great rental place which has the full gammut of canon glass. I also will be using my tripod- bogen legs and manfrotto head. After a brief visit I noticed that at 1.8 shutter speed was around 1/15. Will the 24 end of the 24-70 be too wide for my healthy bride? thanks so much for your advice.

24mm will not be too wide, IMO on an APS-C body, I suggest you pose the Bride in the middle of the group.

 

Get an elevated viewpoint for the group shot, if you can, that way you get all the faces, slightly looking up and that in itself, slims people out a bit.

 

***

 

``1.8 shutter speed was around 1/15.`` doesn`t make sense to me.

 

What is the: aperture: SS and ISO, does make sense to me.

 

I would not be so hasty about renting the 24 to 70: the kit lens works OK at 24mm, but you will need F7 or F8 minimum, IMO: is there enough light to accommodate that?

 

But, IMO, I still have got good results, (re detail, accutance etc) with the kit lens wide open, with accurate exposure and good post production of the RAW image:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7276581

 

 

If you are hiring . . . and can afford it: the 24 to 70 would be better on a 5D, especially shooting low, available light.

 

I think we need a bit more specifics about what ambient light you actually have.

 

WW

Sorry, f1.8, shutter 1/15 ISO 200. Looking at my light meter that translates into an EV of about 5.5 to 6. If I

increase my ISO to 1600 (ack math) that gives me 4 more stops, right? (I am lusting for a 5D but need to save up

yet. I'm Currently using the xti.) So at 1.8, ISO1600 that would be a shutter of 1/125. At ISO1600 f5.6 would be

about as small as I could go, right?

> ISO to 1600 (ack math) that gives me 4 more stops, right? <

 

No, three stops.

 

F1.8 @ 1/15s @ ISO200 = F5 @ 1/15s @ ISO 1600 (moved ISO & Aperture 3 stops)

 

 

 

For a group shot I would only just be comfortable working F5 @ 1/15s @ ISO1600 with a tripod, and MLU and good

shutter squeeze. I would take several and coach the subjects to keep still.

 

F3.5 @ 1/30 @ ISO 1600 would be a better choice, if you cannot use any flash, and that is right on the limit of the

kit lens, that really needs good post production IMO, and that might be difficult at ISO1600. I think that if they want

bigger than 10 x 8, grain (noise) might be an issue.

 

***

 

Also I was suggesting renting a 5D, not buying it. Why I suggested that, was because 24mm is not really that wide

on a XTi, so IMO on the face of it you are not gaining all that much with renting the 24 to 70, just for the group shot,

maybe better to go for the 16 to 35, just in case you need to use it at 20mm for example.

 

 

***

 

I really think though you need an elegant and efficient lighting solution: two 580ex bounced in 2 ft either side of the

camera perhaps. There are many threads about posing a large group, and using flash to do it: do a search: all will

suggest getting up a bit higher, as I mentioned.

 

I have to go running late . .. . will return later

 

WW

Yes, just after posting I discovered my error in 4 stops. Thank you so much for your help. I will do a search and also did a search about the best lens choice and haven't made a decision either way. You are an answer to prayer.

I am going to attempt your suggestion. I will need to rent one 580ex and also locate a wireless flash trigger

kit. Many have mentioned the cheaper ebay triggers, the price for which are much more reasonable for me at this

time, even if they are slightly undependable. And, I will need to rig something up with my light stands unless

there is an easier solution for mounting the strobes. I actually like this idea. I have been wanting to

experiment with

off camera flash and nothing like a little pressure to force me. Phew, problem solved, I think. Oh should I use a

bounce card? The ceiling is white but directing it forward a bit may help give more light. I am guessing the

ceiling (which is arched) to be about 18-20 ft. Thank you again. Amy

Hi again:

 

FYI:

 

Nadine and Jim on using one 580EX, and explaining use of Shutter Drag to get more ambient in:

 

http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00JTR4

 

Me with detail on a large groups, two Flashes and umbrellas but similar placement and ``square on to the subjects`` applies to bounce cards or ceiling bounce: Bounce Cards will most likely give you more power / light but potentially ``worse`` shadows:

 

http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00PFlu

 

If you can get into the venue a few weeks before: do a test with three people, one in the centre one at each edge of the size of the group you expect it to be.

 

WW

<p>Excellent thread for couples where the BRIDE is a plus size.<br /><br />I'm quite confident photographing a couple where ONE of the them is plus size, but what do you do when BOTH your Bride and Groom are plus sizes?<br /><br />We are shooting a couples wedding soon and both are on the heavy side (like me ), so could really benefit from some solid advice here.<br /><br />We haven't been in the business long and while we've shot big brides and big grooms, this is the first big couple we've had. So we have no experience shooting where BOTH are plus size and I'm hoping for some advice or tips.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Ross</p>

<p>Who is going to see these pictures?</p>

<p>My thinking is that only people who know the couple will see them and they know what they look like. Why try to make them look any different?</p>