just married

The hallmark of this image is the timing and the light ,the timing is when the photographer choses to shot just in the transition between two states of light ,between the church and the outside world ,between the light and dark,thus very well emphasizing the transition from one state to another giving the shot the meaning of change in self and the surrounding.
Congrats Barbati.

I actually find this photograph to be a beautiful composition with lots of great negative space and loaded with great symbolism for this event.

Fred identified the light as being approximately 1/3 of the image and I think that's why it works so well––it utilizes the classic proportion of light to dark as well as classic proportions with regards the division of space. For me the circles in the rug echo the shape of the bride's train and make a nice pattern and rhythm across the floor. I don't find these circles overly distracting because even though they are strong, they are muted by the darker light and do work well with the Bride's train. Maybe if they were a bit darker, it might help and could be something to explore if one was so inclined.

The two upright, and lighter, columns next to the doors add some additional framing to the couple, isolating them a bit more from the dark regions behind them and add to the vertical rhythm of the image.

While I do think the cross is a nice touch, there are a few bright areas in the dark that could probably be eliminated without affecting the reading of this photograph. These do end up pulling our eye away and into what appear to be uninformative areas.

The one that caught my attention first is the small half-moon shape about 1/3rd or so in from the upper left corner. This appears to be some sort of candleholder light fixture. The relative lightness in that dark space doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to pull our eye away from the couple.

The 2nd area didn't grab me at 1st and maybe is more easily read for what it is but in this very dark rendition the light coming through the crack where the door is attached to the wall to the right of the bride could be toned down a bit–even possibly eliminated. Again, it pulls us away from the couple and is a bit distracting.

But speaking of the doors, if any tonality in the image would seem to warrant consideration as to lightening, I do think it might be just the doors around the couple. Right now–at least on my monitor–they don't necessarily read as doors because they are so dark and the groom merges completely into the one next to him. Just a small opening up of this area (shadows and highlights maybe) would provide separation of the groom and aid in the reading of these as doors and IMO, if done with a light touch, would not affect the reading of the image as it is presented and because the doors would then read as such, might add to the reading of the image.

Finally, there have been comments on this image and the last wedding image regarding the fact that faces aren't seen. While I realize that one generally would want to include faces in wedding photos, I find that some of the the most emotionally charged images, like this one, that symbolically define the event often don't include, or need to include, the faces of the participants. It does speak to the universality of the event but it can also speak volumes to those involved on a personal level.

The crop presented here ruins the impact of the image IMO as does the lightening of the dark areas. It is the contrast here that I feel imbues this image with a sense of being symbolic and special.

I think it is a very nicely done image and one that has been captured well given the difficult lighting conditions.

for me you have done an injustice to the photographer by choosing another wedding theme photo. it leaves us to compare to the other wedding shot taken by Carlos. i dont think it is as original or as technically good as the other. it is too black for me too dark for a wedding. we dont see the faces of the newlyweds. the light isnt bright enough to be symbolic. the circles arent really circles on the floor and as the bride steps out it appears that there is bust or a photo of a saint on top of her head. a major faux-pas. this photo was taken in Rome. its missing that romanesque flare,,, the roman architecture of columes and decorative carvings. i am almost sure that i have step foot inside this church and the photo doesnt capture the essence of Romancharm , history and art which Rome is known for. is that important.. yes i believe so there are lots of churches. a lot in which leave us feeling cold and sterile this isnt one of them and the photo is hiding its beauty. i think you chose the right photographer just the wrong photo.. sam

The couple is instructed by someone who uses index finger. They do not enter symbolic bright world, but have to obey well for the very beginning.

far from feeling "cold and sterile", this picture mesmerizes me and gives me goosebumps. the least element of importance here is architecture per se. And "romanesque flair" (or the ornate beauty of churches in the roman tradition) is of trifling importance here. as is, i agree with Fred, that the lighted version suggested in one of the comments flattens the potent simple religious metaphor and commercializes it into a flat and washed out stock marriage photo taken from a bad angle, more like from someone's cell phone camera.
this is is, for me, a simple stark religious metaphor. (i was raised in a strict roman catholic tradition, and since you can take the girl out of the church, but never take the Church out of the girl, the simple metaphor here struck me instantly.) it never occurred to me to need to see the beauty of the room or the church design, because the image is a simple symbol of the couple ascending from darkness into light, resurrected into unity (through marriage) with the holy spirit. which makes the amazing aesthetic of the gothic darkness of the place from where the couple ascends, coupled with the subtly lit Cross on the door through which the couple ascends, so simply, elegantly, an absolutely a sufficient metaphor for the couple's spiritual resurrection into a new life. obviously their new life is symbolized by the ascension into the lighted vestibule, which works positionly as a transitory room where the couple enters the light of three simple symbols: the bust of the church's patron saint (a saint being one who represents specific attributes of God's grace, the Christ's cross above the saint, and the gate next to the bust through which the couple will emerge into the full light of heaven, or, at least, into a heavenly place where Holy Spirit can be achieved through body and blood.
then, of course, there's my pagan interpretation, which is the same as above, except to say that the picture also works as a nifty parody of the above religious metaphor.
an elegant aesthetic treatment of a serious religious metaphor. niki..... this picture is ART. ;-} a perfect picture, and a perfect representation of niki's elegant aesthetic. perfetto. ;-} dp

The problem with the "fix" is that now the photo is unbalanced with the top cut off. There is a that floor space behind the couple that puts a drag on it. In the original the church is a character in this story. It is overwhelming and on them even as the exit. You may find this either spiritually uplifting or oppressive, but the stage presence of the church (and the Church) cannot be denied.

Thanks to all, especially to those who are not convinced by this photo. I did not want to show the church and the details of Roman art, have only been struck by the beauty of light filtering through the front door and lit the bride. and is not a wedding pictures then show the faces of the spouses did not interest me at all. I took pictures of this church in various ways including the HDR to show the beauty in every detail ... I here what seems to work is the play between light and shadow, from darkness to light. then it's a wedding is a symbolism that extends the meaning of the image. thanks to all
ps: donna pallotta, talk about art seems excessive to me although it's nice to read it:)

i understand Niki about the light its metaphor and symbolism but it still isnt brilliant enough. not convincing enough. if it was indeed coming in from the outside than it may have had more of an impact but it is coming in from another room within the same building. so they still havent really ascended on their journey together into the light sorta speak.. the light is dull quiet. so it loses a lot of value if that is what you were trying to accomplish or convey in this shot.

Donna as far as growing up Catholic. i was raised as Roman Catholic and it doesnt make me an expert on Catholicism or the Roman Church. all the best Sam .

Once again we have an almost "accidental" photograph that responded to a fleeting moment, and now it will be analyzed in minute detail, with analysis and alternatives presented from folks who have had ample time to study and consider all of the elements and possible variations. I'm not complaining; that's just the inherent nature of many POWs, but it is a striking aspect of this weekly photo critique (to me at least).

Initially I wasn't drawn to this photograph, as it did seem like a grab shot by an assistant wedding photographer who happened to be in the background, but over the days it is growing on me. It's probably the few lightly lit elements on the dark left and the "business" of the lit room that I objected to the most. But when looking at the forest rather than the trees, the overall scene has considerable aesthetic and emotional appeal. If one is inclined, it's easy to see the symbolism of the journey this newly married couple is beginning (certainly easier than symbolism I tried to pull out of the POW involving architectural light a couple of weeks ago). I'm inherently drawn to contrasts, and the faintly lit elements on the left (notably the patterns of the flooring) are nicely rendered, the cross on the wall as well as the whitish columns come through in a very pleasing manner, and the elements in the lit room provide the other end of the contrast. Finally, I do like the context provided by the relatively wide shot with much space behind and above the couple. The crop that focuses more tightly on the couple loses this context, and with it goes much of the appeal of this perspective (IMO, of course). In fact, to my eye it is this context that is one of the strongest elements of the photograph.

If this photograph in an almost accidental photograph that was grabbed during a fleeting moment, it was an excellent save.

Finished my shift, had a good night's sleep and now I'm looking at this again. My version is not washed out Fred. Its middle grey. In my version, I see all the details that are hidden in Nikiks version. I look at many images and have a very bad habit, I see flaws right away which disrupts my overall appreciation of many images. In this one I didn't automatically see a bride and groom walking into the light symbolism. I saw the crack of light and the door frame on top that took my eyes away from the bride and groom that, to me look no different than the plastic couple you see on a wedding cake. The bride and groom don't hold my attention for long. We don't see much of any emotion there unlike the bride of CarlosH from a few weeks ago that had much emotional impact and detail. Then I am drawn to the room itself where you can't see any detail in the darkness. For me 'walking into the light' is symbolic of dying. I think a lay viewer might be drawn to this photo aesthetically, but for a more experienced eye, the flaws are pronounced.

Stephen makes a great point here. This is a real photograph of a real moment and it is about something specific not what others appear to want to make it.

It isn't about the art of the place or the culture, it isn't about the culture or the people of a specific culture, it is about a universal moment.

It certainly might be more symbolic if it were different and could be cool with legions of those flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz hidden in the shadows but that isn't what we have here or the intent of the photographer. We have a beautifully seen moment, a sensitivity to capturing a scale that maintains the moment but doesn't lose the symbolism or metaphor.

Personally, I don't know that a shot that was totally controlled and set up could actually be much better. Changing the source of light or context or emphasizing the grandeur of the space could certainly change the image, but would it make it better or just different? Often these things relegate a real moment of substance that is seen to a trite cliche. Here we have a real moment that was seen and feels organic not an overly produced and sterile rendition of same.

The originality of this capture and its moment is what makes this image stand up in this great form, the shaded zones and the way I see them are still maintaining sufficient details, and thats enough here, the corrected version to me has washed out the nice contrast and seriously effected the tone also which is not of a great add to this image at all.
This image as it is tell the story of this marriage ceremony in its own way, and I find it a great way as it been seen by the photographer, not other wise, with my all respect to every one here.

SAM COMTOIS : Donna as far as growing up Catholic. i was raised as Roman Catholic and it doesnt make me an expert on Catholicism or the Roman Church. all the best Sam

donna's response: no claims were made in my comment about expertize on Catholicism for viewers; i simply proffered my background to explain the possible reason why i so immediately felt drawn to the religious symbols, about which i addressed in my comment, and imagine i'm being prompted to repeat:
i wrote: obviously their new life is symbolized by the ascension into the lighted vestibule, which works positionly as a transitory room where the couple enters the light of three simple symbols: the bust of the church's patron saint (a saint being one who represents specific attributes of God's grace, the Christ's cross above the saint, and the gate next to the bust through which the couple will emerge into the full light of heaven, or, at least, into a heavenly place where Holy Spirit can be achieved through body and blood.
i simply believed that it was important to point out these symbols to viewers who might not be familiar with them, or who might not have considered them important to construing the religious meaning of the image, if one chooses to invoke a religious interpretation, which is all that i've done based on what i see in the image. ;-} dp

Stephen, IMO, it's not just the nature of POTWs. It's the nature of photographs. No matter how accidental and fleeting the moment of capture, a photo is a photo, a sometimes fleeting and sometimes accidental moment that is stilled and preserved. Now, I don't like many of the suggested alternatives any more than you do, and I do think a photo can be over-interpreted and analyzed, and in some cases that has been done here as well. This is often done both in these forums and in art criticism in general. That being said, however, that we have time to sit with a photo and look at details and compositions is kind of inherent in the viewing process of any photo. A photo has stilled a moment and we get to view it for as long as we want (sometimes longer). A good photo, no matter under what conditions and no matter how fleeting or accidental, has to stand up to such a viewing. Like you, I'm sure I don't view all photos the same way. I have different reactions to different genres and types of photo. I expect and get different things from street shooting, from landscapes, from macros, from wedding photos, from snapshots. And even though I recognize that street shooting, for example, is often very spur of the moment and allows for a lot of accidents, sometimes the results really don't work visually when the moment is preserved and stilled (no matter how much the moment may have been a special one for all who saw it when it occurred). Winogrand was onto something to the extent that he recognized that the subject is different from the photographed subject. I think your comment is worth considering very much in light of a balance between analysis and the type of photo we're looking at and also the fact that a photo is actually much, much more than the fleeting moment which occurred at when the shutter was released.

sam you're wrong, the light comes directly from the outside and not from another room, if you enlarge the photos also see the gate on the road ..... but why write in black?

hi Niki.. thanks i thought so. it is the Basilica that i had visited. no reason for the bold black letters. i like the way they look perhaps. Niki that is the problem i think. why do we take everything and shove so much meaning on things? its a nice photo of a couple who just got married to me. as far as symbolism yes there is light because someone opened a door and churches are dark places. yes there are crosses but how unusual is this for a Catholic church? i have always admired your work and i am happy to see that your work was recognized by the elves. i dont see photos as art i just see them as a form of expression. not everything is deep and tortured .no hidden meanings to these bold letters. i wasnt trying to be aggressive by choosing them in anyway as it may have appeared to imply. :) take care sam

The handling of shadows and light is superb, as well as the composition. The open, wide and dark spaces give it much more depth, and a very interesting highlight of religious objects to sort of give the whole image an added signature. In my opinion, this is classic photography. Great work.

That is the beauty of symbolism, it is dependent on many factors including cultural, experiential and psychological just to name a few. In this case it can even mean a little too much "Touched by an Angel" ;))

But honestly, this is probably a bit over the top.

I don't know that anyone here has the credentials to make such a statement or if they did, would. It is a good way to kill a conversation and that is what this POW is all about. The beauty here is that everyone has a chance to express their opinion on the image and even argue about points, but no one has the right to denigrate another's aesthetic view of things. I think this image is well done and will put my experienced eye behind that. Certainly, there are some minor issues that have been pointed out, but this is not a case of where pronounced flaws exist. Differences of opinion, certainly.

John I think you are going a bit far with the conversation killer. The photo has underexposed and overexposed portions. If you want to ignore those flaws or look at them as assets to the `mood ` fine. I don`t see it and I don`t find the couple particularly interesting either..so what am I left with? I can`t see the church`s architecture ,but notice the high walls, and except for a lovely patttern on the floor, teasingly lit , its not enough to hold my interest either. I am sure many viewers will appreciate this photo, and certainly many will fall for the romance of it, but I don`t. I need more content and interest, I think ,than what this photo offers.

I think that this wedding photo without the faces, generalizes the moment, instead of personalizing it .

I like the couple walking from the shadowed part to the lighted one, which is the main atraction of the photo, and well placed on the frame. For me the back floor has nothing significant to tell.
What unites the BG and FG are the two crosses (the inside and outside) that tells the viewer that it is a church ceremony.
It is a simple nice moment for the couple's album, but other than that, for me , it has nothing in particular to make it a special wedding photograph.

MH, I don't think I agree with wanting to "See" more of the room. I find it more of backround surroundings & wouldn't want it lighted so as to compete with the subject.
As for your crop, I like it. Like you, I'm not crazy about the top of the door frame. I definitely like more of the right wall cropped out as well

I like this photo a lot.Bridal couple well placed silhoetted in doorway. Has charm & romantic atmostphere.Maybe some noise reduction could be an improvement.

Are they moving out of the church? Some have comented that they were moving into the light. Where is there a notion of movement in the photograph? Are they standing in the doorway to present themselves to the world and then return to the interior?
It's interesting, in the absence of niki's comments, how there was the interpretation of movement in what is essentially a static scene. Does that come from the position in a door where people normally do not stand, or does it come from some other aspect of the photo?

John,

I don't know that we can ignore symbols and compositional devices that give us hints to what is going on. While everything you suggest could be true, we can easily infer other meanings as well.

The diagonal lines created by the light and how it triangulates behind the couple create a sense of motion as diagonal lines almost always do--and here, almost a wake if you will. Then, there is the mere fact that they are physically heading, or facing, outward toward the light (heading used here in a more navigational sense rather than specific movement) and that movement is reinforced by their placement within the scene. Then there is a psychological sense of movement in this direction that comes not only because of their placement but also by the use of dark and light. Out of darkness, regardless of the inferred meaning one may have for that, is one easy reading in this regard and more likely than that they would turn and come back into it. Yes, if as some have wished for, the dark areas were more light and opulent it could be a different story, but even then most infer linear movement of direction based on how one is headed.

Of course, no one has mentioned the finger gesture on that hand that suggests a command to "stay", but yes, there are many devices within the frame that suggest movement along their heading as well as just a sense of what is normally expected in these things. Nothing precludes an alternative reading, but that is the beauty of an image like this, it can have several.