Photographer Shoots Bride and Groom's Wedding Pictures With a Burning Building as a Backdrop

Photographer Shoots Bride and Groom's Wedding Pictures With a Burning Building as a Backdrop

One photographer has an incredible addition to her arsenal of wedding photography after capturing a newlywed bride and groom while a burning building formed the backdrop.

Portrait, couple, and wedding photographer Megan Allen of Studio 22 Photography had just left the wedding reception of Dillon and Corrie Jameson in order to snap some pictures of the pair on their big day.

Recalling the excitement, Allen said, “Immediately, I ran toward the bride, Corrie, to alert her, and I was thrilled when she met me halfway through the reception hall, breathless, and said, ‘We have to go to the fire for photos!’”

The venture was no easy feat, including climbing up a gravel hill and crossing a train track to get a spot close enough, something less than ideal in a wedding dress. The images seem to have been worth it since what resulted is a series of epic photos that have a volcanic feel to them.

Photo by Megan Allen.

Allen described the couple as “fearless,” and said she’s always willing to go as far as her couples are.

Thankfully, the burning building was confirmed by police to be abandoned and that nobody was hurt. Two juveniles were arrested on a count of arson.

All images used with permission, and are copyright Megan Allen.

Log in or register to post comments

32 Comments

Jon Tascon's picture

Talking about opportunity. Well done.

Leigh Miller's picture

IMHO it's in poor taste.

Peter Gargiulo's picture

I agree. I thought I was the only one who thought it bad.

Jack Alexander's picture

I think had it been anything other than a disused, abandoned building, I'd have agreed with you

in the heat of the moment —no pun intended— how does one know if it is an abandoned building or not, or if anyone was hurt or not?

Michael Bartello's picture

Exactly... she's all "dope dude," while in the meantime, there literally could have been people dying in the building behind her "moment." And couple this with the fact that they're all running on live train tracks that also could have been cause for more carnage. The end result was cool, but the ignorance was not.

Casey Fry's picture

Most likely by looking at it and its surroundings, and observing other circumstantial clues; it may have been obvious. I would say that they were in a better position to judge than us...

Something had to trigger the fire, even if that something was a rat drenched in chemical x, met another rat drenched in chemical y, and the exothermic reaction resulted in a fire. The point being, the photographer had no way of knowing what great tragedy happened to cause a fire, or if the building was indeed empty of human lives. People may have entered to start a dope lab, or to inspect for a possible purchase, or survey for proper demolition.

We just don't know, even if standing there looking at the fire.

David Strauss's picture

Cool pics. There's definitely a dichotomy here of using a situation that is someone elses as a cool opportunity. I could see how this could backfire...

Simon Carter's picture

Cool pics, but I find it hard to believe that people are still crossing railway tracks to get pictures.

https://fstoppers.com/news/teenager-dies-during-train-track-photoshoot-1...

Crossing rail road tracks is bad now? Shooting on them is one thing, but if no one could cross them, I'd never be able to get to work!

Simon Carter's picture

I guess different parts of the world have different volumes of traffic with different requirements.

In the UK places where folk are allowed to cross train tracks are pretty rare; doing so anywhere else is a criminal offence - with good reason

Doug Stringham's picture

Not sure what the good reason is... unless the tracks are so busy that it would be impossible to cross safely.

Simon Carter's picture

Simple: tracks can look clear but it's often impossible to react quickly enough to get out of the way when trains come through.

Maybe in some parts of the world you can be sure that trains will only move slowly enough to be avoided. That's not so in the UK.

Jen Photographs's picture

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, they're cool pictures.

But on the other: trespassing -- train tracks are considered private property. And it was dangerous. The sparks could've easily flown onto the dry grass or their clothes.

I'm a bit of a debbie downer, it seems.

Joe Black's picture

Crazy cool pics. Talk about seizing the moment.

Rex Larsen's picture

Yep, be very careful around railroad tracks. "Poor taste" ? Not if the couple likes it and no injuries were reported.
I like the second pose much better. I never understand the looking-in-opposite-directions pose. That's after twenty five years of marriage.

One of my sons got married recently and the photographer did a looking-in-opposite-directions shot, along with other similar poses. I don't like them. No. Not a bit!

Michael Comeau's picture

Agreed. I don't see any intimacy in these pictures.

«…and no injuries were reported.»
So we wait to hear if any injuries were reported then decide if it is in poor taste or not?

Roger Dilts's picture

I think some of you are making this out to be more than it was. This occured in downtown Dayton Ohio. The railroad that runs through is a freight only rail system at very low speed. The venue they walked from was not that far away. They were not impeding any traffic or firefighting efforts. This was a spontaneous opportunity that the couple and photographer took advantage of with very low risk of injury. Have included a map of the area.

Casey Fry's picture

How dare you present a reasonable perspective... prepare to be ignored, and perhaps even chastised!

Roger Dilts's picture

I say get in line and prepare to wait, the line is long with many people ahead of you.

michael buehrle's picture

it's different. some love it, some hate it. most would wish they shot it. to me, it was a empty building and no one was hurt so i have no problem with this. if it was a house full of babies and puppies then it would be in bad taste. opinions are like assholes..........this is mine.

«if it was a house full of babies and puppies then it would be in bad taste.»
So we wait to find out what kind of building, and if anyone was hurt, to decide if we should shoot, or if it would be in bad taste?

michael buehrle's picture

yep. plus if it was full of puppies and babies you could probably hear them. and just for the people with no sense of humor........that was a joke.

Casey Fry's picture

It is usually safe to say that there are no babies and/or puppies in an abandoned industrial building. Making observations of one's surroundings and circumstances then applying logic and reasoning will go a long way; jumping to conclusions in ignorance from behind a computer screen, not so much.

michael buehrle's picture

unless it was a baby/ puppy factory you meant to say.

Casey Fry's picture

Right, well there's that.

«…had just left the wedding reception…. “Immediately, I ran toward the bride, Corrie, to alert her, and I was thrilled when she met me halfway through the reception hall, breathless, and said, ‘We have to go to the fire for photos!”»

That does not sound like, “Hey, I just realised that an abandoned building with no one in it is burning. Let's….” Even if the photographer knew that the building was, as you described, an abandoned industrial building, it does not mean that she knew no one was in it, (unless the photographer arranged the fire herself ;-) ).

Something had to trigger the fire in an “abandoned” building, even if that something was a rat drenched in chemical x, met another rat drenched in chemical y, and the exothermic reaction resulted in a fire. The point being, the photographer had no way of knowing what great tragedy happened to cause a fire, or if the building was indeed empty of human lives. People may have entered to start a dope lab, or to inspect for a possible purchase, or survey for proper demolition.

We just don't know, even if standing there looking at the fire.

More comments