Why ‘Morning After’ Boudoir Photography is Absurd (NSFW) | Fstoppers

Originals
Categories
Gear
Forum
Picture of the Day
Contests
More
- FS Gear Guide
- Fstoppers T-shirts

Untitled-3

Why ‘Morning After’ Boudoir Photography is Absurd (NSFW)

A new “trend” seems to have rolled into the photography world. What is this trend? It’s called the “morning after” wedding photography session, and to me it’s a little absurd.

So you already know my opinion on this subject, yet the rational part of my mind is still able to diverge the topic in two somewhat logical paths (even the path that I think is absurd):

1) If I were the bride and groom getting the images done, I wouldn’t care what anyone else thought because clearly I am are already vain in the first place. I obviously see the need to have photo documentation right after I’ve consummated my marriage. This is important – my ruffled and unkempt hair, smeared makeup, disheveled sheets, clothes strewn everywhere. My ass is hanging out of my scantily clad “bride” underwear. Now that is a work of art.

2) But let’s get real: Do I really need images of this? What is the point of having them? Nowadays the only reason us of this present generation take pictures of ourselves is to share online – more importantly, Facebook. Facebook is heavily, and somewhat unhealthily, ingrained in our lives- don’t deny it. It IS the ultimate scrapbook. Scrapbooking places we’ve eaten, friends we met, places we’ve gone, and epic parties that we’ve been too. We even use Facebook to validate marriage. Now all of a sudden the new trend is to document where and how many times we’ve had sex? I bet Mark Zuckerberg never saw that coming.

michellejonne10 Why Morning After Boudoir Photography is Absurd (NSFW)

morningafter22n 2 web Why Morning After Boudoir Photography is Absurd (NSFW)

Untitled 25 Why Morning After Boudoir Photography is Absurd (NSFW)

An article in Jezebel that originally discussed this topic references an image of Kate moss and her husband Jamie Hince. Despite my previous tirade, I have no problem with Kate moss doing this. I feel like the standard is completely different for celebrities, as they are in front of the lens 95% of their lives. It was probably impossible for them to keep the images to themselves in the first place because 1) they are narcissists at their finest and 2) they make money and remain in the spotlight by releasing the photos to the press.

original Why Morning After Boudoir Photography is Absurd (NSFW)

In this video from Good Morning America, the bride states she plans to have the images framed and put up all over their room. I honestly don’t see anything wrong with doing that – your bedroom should be your sacred place for just the two of you. The room and all its decorations are just for you and your significant other. What I can’t grasp is why you would want something so sacred to be strewn all over the internet for your coworkers, perhaps boss, friends, and relatives to see. One of the couples stated they were so delighted with the results of the shoot, they posted the photos on Facebook and said they were going to show their children when they were old enough. You don’t want to see mommy and daddy gettin’ it on, why the hell do you think they want to see YOU doing that? They got the images taken because they want to show everyone how in love they were? Isn’t that the reason for wedding photography in the first place?

article 2192538 14AA6A02000005DC 738 634x633 Why Morning After Boudoir Photography is Absurd (NSFW)

michellejonne4 Why Morning After Boudoir Photography is Absurd (NSFW)

morningafter22n 3 web Why Morning After Boudoir Photography is Absurd (NSFW)

I think some of these images can prove to be tasteful and sweet, but an image of you and your significant other lying naked all over the dining room table is way over the top. Just imagine your relatives getting a hold of this image knowing they’re about to come over for Thanksgiving dinner. I’m pretty sure they just want to eat their meal and not have to think about the two of you having sex all over the house. Sure, maybe in the image weren’t actually having sex but who is to say you haven’t before or will later down the road. I’m no prude but this should all be kept private!

All images © Michelle Jonne

« Nightfall in Los Angeles – Timelapse

Curiosity Snaps a Gorgeous Photo of Martian Mountain Range »

Jason Lee Boyd
Two words: SOUTH CAROLINA
manuel9987
Sorry Lee, but everone who feels offended by Laurens article is abolutely right. You can not say “your work has to die. now.” What would you feel if someone would write “writing articles on blogs has to die immediatly because imposing your thoughts to others is vain and self-loving ” Would you feel offended? of course you would.
http://www.facebook.com/glamboudoir.photographer Natalie Kita
To say that sexy images (whether “morning after”, or non-morning-after couples boudoir, or “regular” boudoir, or fine art nudes, or Victoria’s Secret catalog/Sports Illustrated Swimsuit pics/Dove Soap ads) should not be shared on the internet…Well, that automatically presumes something shameful or something that must be hidden about sex, sexuality, nudity, and the human body. Some of us don’t happen to believe any of it is shameful or needs to be hidden. Some of us even feel society needs to view it all as natural, beautiful, and perfectly acceptable to be shared if those involved see fit. Don’t like it? Don’t look. And to make a distinction between celebrities/models and “normal” people in this context is bothersome to me as well. Regular people have just as much right to celebrate their sexuality, beauty, bodies, whatever as any star… And if the way they choose to celebrate that is to capture, view, and share it, I see nothing wrong with that.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=803630401 Jay Terry
Wow, this author is completely off the mark.
Every person who pays to be put in front of the camera is a narcissist, to some degree. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t care about hair, makeup, posing or hanging their portraits. The notion that ANY kind of personal portrait is “unnecessary” belies the author’s utter ignorance of this industry and the people who support it.
This kind of narrow- and close-minded prudishness is what truly “needs to die”. Morning After sessions celebrate love, every bit the perfect pairing for wedding photography. The two are inexorably linked. The fact that the author doesn’t get that in the least points towards a lack of empathy and serious intimacy issues.
http://www.facebook.com/cowgirlbellydancer Angela Smith Thompson
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right.
fashiontim
This type of photography is no different then Couples Boudoir and there is nothing wrong with it. The author needs to open her mind. Don’t care what kind of degree you have nor where it came from. All I see is a “Natural Light Photographer” which tells me I don’t have a physical studio or own any lights and if I did I wouldn’t know how to use them.
Jon Dize aka DIZEMAN
Certainly you are welcome to your own opinion, as long as you understand it is only your opinion and not the norm or consensus. Your words clearly define you as a prude, you seem to find sex dirty or distasteful, something that should be hidden away. I find that a tad sad. Hopefully most have had sex all over their house and are not trapped by the cage of their bedrooms. I don’t find anything offensive, ugly, obscene about intimate relationships, nor do I imagine for them to be healthy, they need to be hidden away in a dungeon of routine, behind closed doors with the lights off, curtains drawn, sound proof rooms.
The entire article reads with a tone of anger and angst as though someone has slapped somebody’s puppy or peed in the pool.
Every paragraph is full of more negative sarcasm than objectivity.
Is there something you need to get off your mind? Need someone to talk to? A secret that needs to be dealt with? I don’t know… the entire article reads as though it is a chance to spit, vent anger.
If a couple wants to document their love for each other in a manner you or I may not understand, certainly we get to have our own opinion, but nobody has given us any right or expectation of privilege to cast judgment against them, simply because we may not find their choices the same as ours.
They get to do whatever they want! If they want to hire a photographer to shoot their “Morning After!” photos, then that is a choice that does not cause harm to ANYONE, it does not violate any laws, it does not put anyone else in danger, it does not make you less than you are for knowing they want to do such a thing.
In fact… it has nothing to do with you or I whatsoever, it’s just none of our business. We may imagine we have a right to spew and spit about such things, but do we really need to?
BECAUSE WE CAN, DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN WE SHOULD!
If you don’t want to shoot “Morning After!” photos, then just don’t, but I find it POMPOUS and OFFENSIVE and a tad OBSCENE that anyone would sit and snark, spit and spew IRE at those who may.
It’s just not your charge or position to do so. Nor mine!
LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE TO DO AS THEY WISH unless what they are doing is illegal or harmful to others.
If you need to vent, I suggest a Priest or a Therapist!
http://profile.yahoo.com/ZMFGXF32AZEXE4BHXJXSQBFZGE Jerry
The entire genre is for the silly, self absorbed, narcissistic, and hopelessly lost generation of adults trapped in their adolescent past.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=602117972 Kevin Younger
I didn’t say that news was not an opinion. News is supposed to be, to a high degree, objective but as you point out it is filtered (even unconsciously) through the individual who chooses to make the images or write the story. The decisions they make are based on their views of what the story is, their experiences, their morals, etc. So news can never be truly objective even if that is the primary goal.
I agree with you on that and I agree with most of your original comment.
I stated that an OPINION piece is not NEWS.
It’s an opinion. Plain and simple.
There are definitely news organizations that throw a heavy dose of opinion out there under the guise of news. As the political system gets more polarized in the U.S. it seems to be happening more. I’m not saying this happens at most news outlets but there are some. I would say that either those organizations are confused about this or truly don’t care.
And I wasn’t bringing up this point to say that Lauren’s piece shouldn’t have a place on FStoppers. (However, they could possibly have had someone write a counterpoint to her opinion.)
Sorry about the late post but I just noticed the reply on the Disqus tab.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=602117972 Kevin Younger
Chris, I don’t know if I’d say all of it is but definitely more than it should be.
In the past op-ed pieces were clearly differentiated on the news and in newspapers and that doesn’t seem to happen as much any more.
And as I stated below I don’t have a problem with Lauren’s piece or with FStoppers running it (even though I don’t necessarily agree with her).
Robertt1
My point was that not just anything is “real” or “human” must be photographed or shown. And if people “stage” so much pictures of them with clothes on, imagine how much they’ll want to stage pictures with them “semi-” naked and in such intimate positions.
http://www.facebook.com/matt.mccord1 Matthew McCord
I agree, these are not classy at all. When you do wedding photos and boudoir, I think it’s important to make them as classy as possible.
http://www.facebook.com/matt.mccord1 Matthew McCord
Also, I think wedding photos and boudoir photos should remain separate. I didn’t mean to imply that I think they should go together, because they shouldn’t, in my opinion.

Made by Novum