Is the Groom a Little Nervous?

Subtle humor invades what may seem like an ordinary 'wedding'

capture, when one closely examines the groom and gives a new meaning

to the English term 'tongue in cheek'. Your ratings and critiques

are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very

critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; Please

share your superior photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Hi John

This MCU shot (medium close-up) is very natural and talks to me. It is as if I am watching from close quarter but there is one technical glitch. In MCU shots, enough headroom must be left. You have not only violated this guidline but also have cropped the subjects head. That's the only drawback as far as my knowledge and study concern.

I agree -- when I actually saw this image, I about jumped. It was 'great'. I just had to pass it on.

It's entirely 'human'.

A tender and touching moment.

John (Crosley)

Thanks for your endorsement. I learned a while ago, that no matter how good or bad technically a shot, a super expression will 'carry' a photo, and if it's technically good then the photo will have 'great' appeal.

This is one of those photos I think, just for the expression.

Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

John (Crosley)

Thank you Arash, for the nice comment -- it's a nice compliment.

If you look in my portfolio and the huge amount of compliments under it, you'll find over a year and a half ago, a comment by a member named Peter Bilitch, the second person in my life who told me not to crop the tops of heads, and my considered reply. I told him I sometimes do and I sometimes don't crop head tops and why.

You might consider scrolling comments under my portfolio and reading that.

I don't consider head cropping even in medium close up or close up shots a 'technical glitch' at all, but it serves to 'focus' attention on the true subject and sometimes is an absolute necessity for purposes of proper framing and composition.

If you read that reply to Peter Bilitch's criticism and still think I am ill-considered in my point, come back and we'll have a discussion on head cropping, as I'm very aware of it, do it intentionally (or naturally) and am not ashamed of it . . . and I'll probably continue to do it, very much aware of my doing it.

I don't do it when the background is sufficiently out of focus that is does not deter or distract and I can 'center' the subject, which in this case is the 'tongue in cheek'. This is not a photo of a couple, but of the tongue in cheek, less one be confused. If this were a 'wedding photo' then you would be absolutely correct and my technique would be horrible, but I was NOT the wedding photographer but a kibitzer taking JUST this photo.

I like good critiques, and yours was good for it made me think (and look back). You are now the third person in three years who has suggested I NOT crop heads in such shots and this is the third time I have decided to look afresh at the issue.

I'm still open to discussion, though.

John (Crosley)

For those of you who photograph weddings for a living, or at least for friends, this is my idea of how a wedding photo should look -- live and spontaneous. The photographer was watching me very closely, with my large equipment in this Eastern Country -- maybe the couple was famous for the region or politically connected, for he made a remark (in Russian carried to me by my interpreter) that he was fearful my photos might eclipse his and end up in a Kiev newspaper (maybe he wanted control over them, and Kiev might have been willing to pay him some slight sum for them, as photos are generally worthless, especially outdoor wedding photos after the ceremony when the couple is touring a city, as they do in the Soviet tradition -- this is a former 'Soviet' country, which follows the 'Soviet' tradition, where the couple goes to the city's landmarks for group photos, in front of the tanks, parks, monuments, statues, etc., and a common scene any day weddings are held at any park is to see wedding parties.

Vendors even line up with photo devices, say pigeons to fly away for a photo on cue, just for the photographer (and a small fee), plus other 'devices'. 

Wedding photography is about the only way photographers in such nations make any money at all, and it's a meager living anyway.

I didn't step on the photographer's toes. If there was a photo for a Kiev newspaper (300-400 miles distant) he had his chance to sell it without interference from me.

John (Crosley)

Hi John

Thanks for going to so much trouble to consider my comment worthy of such a thorough clarification.

your awareness of what can be ignored and what not and when has convinced me that you know what you are doing. It's a thorough justification. We have all heared that rules are made to be broken, but a photographer must know them first and must have full control over where and when a certain guideline can be left behind. Your explanation about your intention to focus on the face is what I have found compelling enough when I look at the issue through your eyes, but I have another issue to bring around at this point. You know that shapes occupy a considerable place in the theory of photography. the upper portion of human head makes a semi-circle profile. That's what our eyes are used to seeing. That's probably another reason why some fashion hair styles try to disturb this profile to draw attention to a new cult. when you crop that part, your are moving in this direction: you are pulling the eyes toward what attracts attention since it's no longer ordinary eough to be ignored. look at the hats. which one looks ordinary? The ones with a semi-circle profile or the ones which have a flat top? The latter has an unusual outline on what should naturally have a round outline. I agree that

you have created more focus on the protrusion in the face, but you have also created an anomaly attracting the eyes. The viewer's eyes doesn't remain pinned to the primary subject of interest, but osciallates between these two points. If

you had left the outline intact, the eyes wouldn't have scanned the outline due to the fact that they are used to such an outline. They have seen it thousand of times, but who has seen a head cut in half? That's why it goes the opposite direction of what you have on mind. Close your eyes and redraw the image in your mind with the top of the head not cropped. Doesn't it look like a human's head? How many times during the day you tell yourself " hey that man has a round head ! " look at the bride. The head profile is round and doesn't attract attention. Now, chop the upper part. It looks so unusual that it becomes the focus of attentions.

I really enjoyed this discussion and look forward to your answer.

In language, some things are so cliched we can suggest the whole by stating only part. We can say 'three strikes and you're . . . ' well you get the idea.

'Tippy Canoe and . . . 'some things are so common (to Americans) that the purpose of the ellipsis is to save the reader from reading something so hoary, so cliched as to insult his intelligence, or simply to recognize that the reader has average or above-average intelligence.

(Tippy Canoe and Tyler Too -- Old Presidential Campaign Slogan, widely known from schoolchildren onward though few can relate it to real history or know who Tyler was or the meaning of the phrase.)

One can think of hundreds or thousands of such phrases that can be completed with an 'ellipsis'.

While you are sensitive to the 'cutting off' of a head, many viewers simply will view the frame as a sort of 'ellipsis' and in their minds they will fill out the form (the circle shape) themselves. In fact our minds are programmed, scientists tell us, to recognize the mouth, nose and eyes as a face (and only right side up, not reversed, and the top of the head is superfluous to the newborn through toddler who can make the distinction 'instinctively' It's vital to our sense of survival to recognize our parent and 'reward' them with a coo or a smile when they deliver food or tickles (or even a fresh diaper perhaps).

And it is not the object of all my photographs to create lack of dynamism (vibrating eyes between protruding cheek and top of head), and in fact it is a corollary of composition that the longer an eye is engage with a particular photo, usually the better the composition (so long as one is not thinking of ways to rate it poorly).

Vibrating eyes of the viewer are not necessarily bad at all. In fact, from a compositional viewpoint, it may be advantageous as it engages he viewer; he can't let go (just as you can't ;~)) )

It's a little subtle, but the more complex photos make the eye linger, and those that fulfill expectations are so 'common' the eye wanders, attention wanders, and it's 'next photo' and a click down the queue.

I know that, knew that, and frankly for other reasons (explained if you looked up Mr. Bilitch's comment and my reply) I've fully explained my reasons for cropping heads, sometimes. It isolates the face which is what's being called attention to, not the full head shape. When the background is irrelevant and completely out of focus, I have no such cropping tendency. Here the background was confused and also I needed to get pretty close up; hence a head crop decision, which was natural and which I wouldn't touch or redo for any 'textbook' idea of what is 'natural' or 'normal' In short, it works for me, and I shoot for myself.

More importantly, the tongue in cheek must be large enough and drawing back to show the whole head would diminish that aspect -- an important detriment for first showing in thumbnail, as here on PN.

Finally, I wanted the tongue in cheek to be a 'subject' within the larger context of a face (not a head), and to keep it largely centered within the frame, but not exactly centered.

You'll notice few of my photos have a subject dead center; most have the subject to one side or another, higher or lower. Here it's higher and to the left, counterbalanced by the smiling (and contrasting) bride, who has no apparent trepidation.

This is, of course, another Crosley contrast photo, which no one has called attention to.

So, for all the above reasons, I shot it as I did, and if I had to do it again, I'd shoot it just the same. I can't think of a better way. In fact, showing the head top, unless I were shooting 'large' for a mural or something, would not be a consideration. If I were shooting this as part of a wall mural, then for sure, I'd include the entire scene and his whole body would be shown if the photo were presented so 'large' that one could still see this element sufficiently large it would call attention to its unusual aspect, say in a gallery showing.

One has to shoot for the medium; here the medium is Photo.net where first showing is in thumbnail and maximum presentation is set by the size of a computer screen, usually small.

So, for the most part, I post simple photos, but there are exceptions.

I note my old buy in the Paris thrift shop, a complex photo (which showed his whole head) got mediocre ratings and views, though it's one of my best photos ever (Black and White from Then to Now folder, posted recently).

It's many times better than this, but it may not end up being so popular. It's also far more serious (and it shows the subject's head top, and the photographer was set back a little bit, as such views require.)

I can shoot in many styles, and that's probably enough discussion for what was only two or three seconds acquisition and framing (with no wait, since he was already protruding his tongue when I lifted my camera to immortalize that moment.)

I enjoy your comment(s))/critiques. I do not shy away from honest, good faith and especially intelligent criticism and know when (1) to stand my ground and (2) when to admit that the other party has a better idea (see my last 'Srawberry Felds photo and the cropping suggestion of 'Smeone Else' and how I reacted, for an understanding of how I react to good suggestions/criticisms. (Someone Else made my good photo even better with a simple crop and showed me how.)

What do you think? Did you find the Bilitch comment on head cropping in comments under my portfolio, and my reply?

I look forward to your reply. (Reply done stream of consciousness, without drafting at full keyboard speed.)

John (Crosley)

John, I admitted that your being conscious of what you are doing and which aesthetic element to ignore is a justification all right. You are one of those guys who are exploring the unproven realms and are credit to the development of photography art and technique. I found your defense well-founded for just that reason. You have the courage to improvise and that's wonderful. This is where I back off a little bit. I have always been trying to stick to the guidlines I am well aware of since I have been researching steadily for the past five years and am determined to reinforce my knowledge of the rules before I try to break them. I will someday catch up, but for now my portfolio is a reflection of various photography guidelines. That's probably why my shots are average from the standpoint of emotional content ( why don't you take a look and leave a comment ).

only one question remains: Do you pre-intellectualize or post? I pre-intellectualize myself. That's why I love landscape photography, having enough

time to sit down and go over the scene element by element before depressing the shutter button, and I have never tried and will probably never do wild life where

everything is over in a second. It was really nice discussing with you. I learned a lot.

Hi john

I saw in me to thank you for your highly instructive presentation. running into yours was a wonderful experience. Iwent over it once and was so inspired that I saved it as a part of my study to go over it time and again. Cheers.

Do you mean the 'Presentation' 'Photographers: Watch Your Background' -- a work in progress, which steadily is evolving and includes hundreds of photographs? It is the core of a book project which was begun over two years ago and may now come to fruition. I'll be hawking the idea to publishers soon enough; probably within the month.

Thank you; I'm told it's the largest 'Presentation' on Photo.net, and it's a labor of love. It actually taught me, the teacher, on how to take photographs the way I do. Imagine that.

I hope my explanation above on why I chop off head tops is somewhat explanatory if not satisfactory.

Best to you Arash. Thanks for the dialogue. Don't be a stranger.

I like critics who engage me from a place of curiosity and good faith; I'm always willing to do battle with someone who espouses 'textbook photography' ;-))

John (Crosley)

Intellectualizing everything can be interesting, but having a quick mind and a quick shutter, as in my case, with my people photos can be very rewarding.

People, especially strangers, won't hold still, for a stranger photographer to hold an unusual pose for more than a few seconds.

I waa at Samys Cameras -- Los Angeles's legendary camera store -- and spied a most unusual face behind a counter at their sister -- outlet -- store and asked the guy if I could take his photo. He said 'yes' but I knew I only had less than a minute before he would be irritated.

So I took a photo or two and showed it to him.

He was delighted (and perturbed, since it showed his age, but very well, wrinkles and all).

He allowed me to take more. It was my photo of the day and maybe the week, all for carrying cameras and being able to think quickly, being bold enough to 'see' something then 'act' on it, and finally to 'execute' on something promptly without excessively intellectualizing it.

In fact, I intellectualized it, but only in a split second. Who said that one had to don slippers, a smoking jacket, take a pipe or cigar and have a copy of Proust or Susan Sontag to be 'intellectual'.

One can have three cameras weighing one's neck (as I foolishly did that moment -- I was driving an SUV and couldn't leave any in its 'nonexistent trunk') and still do an intellectual exercise 'on the fly'.

There's nothing anti-intellectual about doing things quickly; you just have to have command if the theories you're working with, then know when to 'get the picture' which is the main exercise, rather than putz around with the 'rule of thirds' which I've interpreted as the 'rule of thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, and so forth, -- as it suits my subjects.

And I've often left sizable portions of my frame in negative space, either black or competely out of focus, to draw attention to the main subject.

I'm making rules for me, while others are following 'rules' made by others.

I just keep pushing that shutter, and if it works, that becomes something to replicate; and for me eventually something maybe to teach others or at least to expose through captures.

One day, maybe I'll lead photo tours of street photographers . . . and aspiring street photographers . . . I think that would be fun.

Any takers?

Maybe in some far off city, so the frightening part about making an *ss out of oneself is diminished . . . as that invariably happens.

;-))

John (Crosley)

Through numerous means, through numerous individuals ,and in numerous ways, I have been informed (in my naivete) that the tongue sticking in a cheek like this is supposedly representative of a sexual act, as performed by a woman on a man that starts with the letter 'f' and is eight letters long.

I have sincere doubts that that is what this poor man is doing in this photo, and suggest that he here is not predicting what he will be experiencing after the nuptials, through his facial gestures, unless I happened to miss something in his communication with those around him.

He appeared both serious and nervous -- not joking and smarmy -- with this lovely young woman at their wedding, and so, since I was there (and you weren't), I can reasonably say that he was not suggesting the 'f' word and eight letters long would be coming his way through his facial gestures -- no matter that it appears to have been his wedding that day/

I cannot even be absolutely sure of that, as I was not part of any 'wedding party', not invited, and it is the Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian, etc., model to parade brides and grooms and the entire wedding party around famous and/or historical monuments in their respective wedding cities, where they can all be photographed (in part because sizable estates and other venues for receptions are pretty unheard of, in this relatively near post-Communist time, and in part because it now has become 'tradition' to do so.

Weekends, especially in Spring, around major monuments in any former Soviet city can see a trail of brides, grooms and wedding parties with their photographers/videographers trailing along, being captured with the famous icons of history -- usually historical statues and monuments - sometimes famous and/or historic public buildings or (in Odessa) along the harbor vista, (near the famous steps where the battle scene from the film 'The Battleship Potemkin' was filmed by Eisenstein).

So, no, I don't think this 'tongue in cheek' is some sort of lewd reference; to my mind it's a sign of nervousness, nothing more, with a young man about to embark on a historic journey.

(He could have done a lot worse, by the looks of things, too, at least if you belong to the 'judge a book by its cover' school).

John (Crosley)

A variety of my younger friends have caused me to observe that among younger, courting or flirtatious couples, occasionally, I will see among the more flirtatious (at night especially among those amorously bent) the tongue thrust against the cheek thusly.

Sometimes it's from a girl, suggesting to a guy she pleasure him.

Sometimes it's a request from a guy.

I have never seen it depicted in a photograph, nor did I know it was a gesture, almost universal in post-Soviet Eastern Europe for a request or invitation for 'oral sex'.

Now, stupid me, I did not even think that it related to this photo, and I still do not, but for the sake of clarity must mention it, as my Eastern European viewers (and possibly all the world) will think I've completely missed the point and have possibly been laughing AT me.

Well, I am aware of the issue of 'oral sex' -- we all know that it got Bill Clinton into trouble, and look at his choice of partners with her 'Presidential kneepads'.

But I think still this guy's tongue in cheek gesture was not some lewd suggestion of what might happen to him later the evening of his nuptials, but really an indication of nervousness . . . . just exactly as I observed above.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but probably only he knows for sure, and if he's seen this photo, I'm dead certain he's told his bride that I'm correct in my first surmise (or they're divorced now for certain - or maybe blissfully, blissfully happy and to heck with what others think - who knows?)

john

John (Crosley)