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.
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.
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?
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!
By far the best (and hilarious) article on Fstoppers I have read!
This is a tad off topic, but I seriously hate it when looking at a wedding photographer's work and see it mixed with boudoir stuff. I mean, just imagine what your clients would think. They're brides-to-be and checking out some of the most gorgeous stylized wedding setups with fun and joyful faces, and all of sudden all they see is half naked chicks with boobs and ass hanging out. Very distasteful IMO.
/endrant
in your opinion it's distasteful - but to others it's just work - it's what pays the bills and showcasing that working isn't distasteful.
No, I mean to mix boudoir work with wedding work is distasteful. I have absolutely no problem with either types of photography; just those 2 when put in the same portfolio.
I think that's precisely what Adam was saying was okay. I'm not going to have two separate websites for two different kinds of photography. It's my work and I'll put it all together. If a client sees that and doesn't like it, it's probably the type of person I don't want to work with. All my work is going on a website to showcase the different things I enjoy photographing...but to each their own.
You think brides-to-be aren't aware of boudoir shots? What about maternity pics?
You should read a few post by Z. Arias....
Categorizing your work makes sens AND help the viewer "follow" your work..
What if I'm a photographer that sells Bridal and Boudoir packages (pre wedding shoots - not morning after) almost exclusively?
Is it so wrong for me to include, exactly what I sell, in my portfolio?
Is it wrong to advertise the work I am known for and people recommend me for?
blah - what a middle-american article.
Also - you've got Terry Richardson (the photographer) mixed up with Jamie Hince (the husband), I would be very worried indeed if Kate Moss were married to Terry Richardson
I was kinda shocked to read that too, but didn't care enough to look it up.
clearly had that mixed up - thanks!
I am 100% on board with your thoughts...in that I don't want to see them or take them. In my opinion it is generally distasteful, self absorbed and in some cases even disgusting. I put them on the same maturity level as the teen lip pucker bathroom mirror images. I am not so prude as to not appreciate the human form, but I believe there is a time and a place and a way to present it. I suppose that our society is so enamored with themselves that nothing is sacred or personal anymore? Is it always about me, us and what we are doing every 15 minutes? I think not...and it never will be a healthy approach .
Maybe one day we'll shake this high and might holier-than-thou puritan thinking. It seems today is not the day though. ;-/
If that's what you think this was, you either didn't read the whole article, or you didn't get the point.
If that's what you think this WASN'T, you either didn't read the whole article, or you didn't get the point.
Don't bother with Jaron. He only posts to put others down. And heaven forbid you disagree with him.
If you that that wasn't what this was then you either didn't read the whole article or you don't understand what puritan thinking is.
If that's what you think this wasn't, you either didn't read the whole article or have no clue how to interpret it...
QUOTE: "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"
If that isn't "puritan" thinking, then what is??? According to that quote (and many other's in this article), sex is suppose to be hidden, covered up, veiled...something never to be talked about or put on display. You should be ashamed if you do!
If you follow puritan principles (which you obviously do), great! Go run in a corner and be ashamed of you body, it's your right to do so. Just stop trying to make everyone else feel ashamed as well.
Can we please have more articles about photography and less op-ed pieces from the office manager?
So because I manage our writing staff, manage our sponsors, handle invoicing and day to day operations, and am a working wedding photographer, I'm not capable of forming a coherent editorial on a subject I come into contact with on a daily basis? You're totally right.
Can you please elaborate on how you come in contact with this subject on a daily basis? Is there some hotline I don't know about where people are turned in for wanting to look sexy together as bride and groom?
Or are you getting a lot of requests to do this type of work? If this is the case, maybe you should consider the money making opportunity you're turning your nose up at. Maybe you should subcontract to a different photographer who wouldn't mind shooting this stuff and you both can profit from it?
I think the "subject" she was talking about was photography. Portrait photography, if you want to get specific.
Good point, and taken. Allow me to offer a corrected version of my original comment:
Can we please have more articles about photography and less op-ed pieces?
When you say something condescending and supercilious, that happens to be wrong as well, you don't issue a correction. You offer an apology.
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!
My issue is I come to fstoppers for informative articles about cameras, ideas, concepts, trends, etc. But when I see a writer just complaining about what they don't like, it comes off as a facebook post.
How is this engaging you reader? How is this informing them of something cool in the photography world? This is just your opinion about a trend. I'm sure people have strong issues about "Trash the Dress" shoots, but that doesn't seem to stop the trend.
As someone who worked at a newspaper, right next to the opinion desk, I guess I'm biased.
Also, the headline is misleading. You claim "it's absurd," but then send most of the column explaining why it makes sense, but that you just don't like it being shared. The column doesn't match the headline, to be quite honest.
I disagree with the whole "managing editor writing op ed" comment of above, but the column itself seems out of place.
wow, you're ranting. Good for you.
Sorry but this article is total crap... People have eluded to this above but, I'm just going to come out and say it. This is NOT what I visit FS for. This article has no value to anyone and read like a (to combine some excellent posts from above) puritanical influenced middle-american opinion piece. It could have just read, "Don't post your sexy pics on the Internet or leave them in public places (unless you want to)...
I don't think this sight was set up solely for YOUR viewing pleasure. This is a website about photography, videography and basically all things creative media. Boy there sure are alot of brats on here. Funny to read though.
I'm kind of disappointed by this article. To lambast a couple for wanting to have photos done together, regardless of when it takes place (ie, after the wedding, after a hurricane, after shopping, WHENEVER), is just silly. Fstoppers ran an article recently about a model shoot featuring "abused" models. Another article about "reproductions of serial killer's last meals". You don't question the need for those, yet you question an extension of couples boudoir?
Isn't a LARGE PART of photography about vanity, when we're hiring a photographer to photograph ourselves? This article just comes across as written by a prude, rather than a critic of art. If you're afraid of a little boobs'n'butts, you're in the wrong industry.
Use a self-timer. Otherwise, gross.
I was totally with you until I noticed that you don't know the difference between "there" "their" and "they're".... you definitely just lost a reader. I can't stand that. If you are passing yourself off as a writer to be taken seriously, you should get that in CHECK
Jesus, what a bunch of crap. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this "opinion piece"... The thinking is very conservative, close-minded, and ignorant. I'm totally going to look into adding this type of service to my a la carte menu. What an awesome idea. I believe the author really needs to stop drinking the haterade and possibly get some action or romance in their life to compensate for this bitter and haughty victorian attitude towards sex. Especially when it's not like casual, irresponsible sex.. but the sex b/w two people in the most amount of love they will probably ever be.
I agree with you completely. The couple is the one who wants this shoot, who pays for this shoot, and if a photographer out there can capture exactly what they're looking for and add their own creativity in, then why the hell not? I'd look to do something like this for a picture above my bed, but probably would not post them online...but if you want to, why the hell not? These images weren't even distasteful. They're not porn. Everyone was covered (except for Kate's boob). The couple seems to be in love and having fun...great work of the photographer for capturing this.
I really thought it was a good idea as well. I love it!
"If you are too open minded you brain might fall out".
Did your Pastor tell you that? Or your mommy?
“A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.”
Your "parachute" is obviously too small to be useful, even opened.
I have 3 words for people who think this is a good idea: Tripod and remote.
yeah, that should yield an authentic and professional result.
Wow, I don't regularly chime in here but you sound completely biased and personally hateful on this topic. Just from a writers standpoint this sounds like you have some kind of personal agenda, experience, or story behind your fuming article. This doesn't add any value to any photographer or viewer on Fstoppers. Who are you to pass judgement on a new photo trend? There is nothing wrong with an opionion as long as you state it as that- not make a sweeping judgement that this entire style of photography is wrong or needs to go away. I can't stand traditional/standard/boring wedding photos or family photos but it keeps many photographers working. I'm glad these photographers are creating a new monetization point in their business instead of acting emotionally like you have done. If you don't like it, don't shoot it.
Lets start bitching next about food photos on instagram...
You are most definitely a prude. You are also being very judgemental of something that clearly doesn't affect your target market.
Whatever the client wants, there will most certainly be someone willing to take pictures of it and get paid for doing so. For you to say that a bride is "vain and self-loving" for wanting steamy photos of herself and the one she loves is honestly horrible and downright nasty.As for some critique of your portfolio, I find out-of-focus, grainy, shots with crooked horizons to be more offensive since your clients probably paid you for your time.
How does someone saying they think putting "morning after" pictures on Facebook is gross (not the pictures themselves) warrant you to attack their non-related professional work? I'm fine with people disagreeing with an opinion but these personal attacks are absurd. We don't want to start moderating comments but if stuff like this continues we will have to.
I think if you had read the article you would find that it is based on (9) pictures from possibly (2) couples? To put up their faces and call them out for being trashy or whatever other words were used seems like quite a personal attack to me. She posted the couples and the video of the couples and the photographer. That seemed attack-ish to me.
I don't care about the writer's opinion of posting this stuff on facebook. People put onto the internet as much as they want people to see in their lives. They may not always look down the road at the potential consequences but that is their choice.
My thoughts on the bad photography/grammar are just opinions so please don't get offended.
Yes, Lauren did comment on a national story about people who have decided to go public about their decision to share intimate pictures of themselves. When Lauren goes on TV to talk about her pictures THEN you have the right to attack her work.
If I decided to track you down on the internet and make a comment about a tweet that you made or a post on your Facebook wall that would be out of context and inappropriate for this argument. I'm not "offended with your opinion" I'm offended you took it too that low of a level.
This is what she said:
"A new “trend” seems to have rolled into the photography world, and it needs to die. It needs to die now. It’s not good for photographers, for viewers, or for those in the image."
The responses to Lauren's uninsightful comments are hardly attacks. Her comments sounded more like proclamations than opinions, and the responses to them were reasonable. Your threatening to censor such responses is insulting to your readers. If you can't handle strong responses to outlandish articles, then stick to writing informative articles on the craft and art of photography.
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.
You were saying something about crooked horizons?
http://www.huronphoto.com/Senior-Portraits/Senior-Portraits/11543573_wtn...
I remember when Joel Grimes first starting sharing his edgy, three light composite work and photographers everywhere shouted from the treetops that it wasn't really photography. If people want this "day after" stuff then so be it - who the hell are we (and by "we" I mean Lauren) to judge?