It doesn't. It shouldn't be hanging out of windows or dangling from big chandeliers in the middle of staircases. In fact, the place your wedding dress really belongs is somewhere damn close to where you'll put it on - probably your hotel room. Why? Because that's the only place it makes any sense for it to be.
I see all these crazy photos of wedding dresses - inevitably taken before the bride puts it on, before she walks down the aisle, or sees her soon-to-be-spouse for the first time - in the most ridiculous of places. For some reason it recalls Dr. Seuss - would you wear it in a tree? Would you wear it by the sea? Would you wear it on the stairs? Would you wear it freakin' outside where it could get dirty as hell before you even get into the thing? No! So why do photographers insist on making "art" with this thing you've spent hundreds to thousands of dollars on?
Because it's popular. A couple of people around the world do really cool stuff with the dress - artsy photos that maybe even their own clients liked. All the rest of us see that and think "hey cool, I want to take artsy photos of the dress too!" and now tons of brides around the world are subjected to this outrageous practice of dragging this huge, beautiful,
white thing outside for a "dress shot." And yes, I've definitely heard horror stories about the dress getting dirty and/or irreparably stained through fault of the photographer. Yeah, it's his fault because
why the frack is the dress outside in the first place!? Plus, it's just freakin' creepy. A headless body hanging from chandeliers and light fixtures? Weird.
For almost everyone, their dress will be safe and sound. The photographer takes it outside, puts it in a godforsaken tree, takes it down with the utmost care. It looks just like it did when she took it outside. Except.... what the hell are you going to do with a photo of a dress in a tree? The major problem with this practice is it takes the photographer away from the action, away from the giddy getting-ready bit, to go do this silly, selfish thing that pretty much zero people would want. Even if the dress makes it back in the room unscathed, there's still this question lingering in the air:
why?
I must acknowledge the very moment I realized this was a ridiculous thing to do. I was at a local photographer meet up with wedding photo duo
Justin and Mary giving a talk. They told the story of one wedding where they took the dress everywhere around the mansion, nothing was working, and eventually they just photographed it in the closet where they found it. That's the image that made the album, because
it was the only sensical place for the dress to be. Then and there I decided that I wouldn't take these crazy "detail" photos anymore.What is anyone going to do with the dress-in-a-tree photo? For 99% of weddings, it doesn't make sense, doesn't
add to the story.
The same can be said of any detail at the wedding, really. Shoes, jewelry, flowers, even the rings. If we put them somewhere nonsensical, it's not going to add to the story, but instead confuse. Why on earth were those shoes in that light fixture? Let's keep it real, people. Shoes go on feet. And wedding dresses go on brides. Anything else is just silly.
[And a disclaimer, of course: I have - just one time - photographed a dress in a tree. And it's in my sample album, that I show every single couple I meet with. So if you are a client of mine, you've almost certainly seen me show you a photo of a dress in a tree. But, hey, we all try out bad ideas some times and to my great relief, it actually made a bit of sense at this particular wedding.]
Second, it's really freakin' great to have a flexible schedule. Sunday morning, I decided - it being a slow week here at Amber Wilkie Photography - I would up and go to New York on Monday, you know, the following day. I had to be back for said birthday, so we'd make it two nights. I booked a bunk at my favorite hostel in the city and a bus ticket and put the call out to Facebook to see if any other folks wanted to throw a couple days to the Big Apple. One did! So Jon and I headed up to the great north to spend a couple days shooting street, meeting with photographer friends and client friends and generally having some adventures. Here are my images from the trip:
I just love New York City. It's so vibrant and exciting and diverse. It's really a fantastic place to be, especially when you're shooting street. I think sometimes it takes leaving home to really get in the zone, photographically - at least for personal projects. It's much easier to wake up in my hostel and hit the streets than it is to get out of my comfy bed at home and go take photos in Washington. I'm always glad I did, though.
I've been working on my palette this month, trying to incorporate color in a new way. I tend to do street in black and white and sometimes that is a crutch. It's an added level of difficulty to make color part of the story.
Okay this is sort of cheating, because these were actually on the roof of the hostel. Creepy, right?
And now we have some stuff which is totally different than anything I've shot before. Jon does this whole series on dancers in NYC. In the two short days we were there, he managed to get a dancer to come out and pose for us in the really cold weather. I felt so bad for her! But she was such a trouper - getting all half-naked with zero complaints. Plus, it was really cool to work with someone who could just make a pose instantly. So fun. 'Course, I was still working on the palette.
I've buried these a bit here at the end of this post on purpose. I can't imagine I'll have another opportunity to photograph a dancer (unless I hang out with Jon some more). They're cool but they're so far from my normal work.
Good times.
We were eating through all the foods and wines David and Carrie had been saving - hence the foie gras and caviar and things. The salmon rillettes I demanded. We had them during my wedding weekend way back on when at Buchon. We have been unable to repeat them exactly, though this time we came much closer.
I'm in a tie too, just wanted to show.
David changed out of his tuxedo to cook, the bastard.
For those who would be curious: all of these were taken with the Fuji x100, probably at 3200 or 6400 ISO. It's a nifty little camera.