There’s a scourge of headless brides, grooms, bridesmaids, and groomsmen on the loose, so watch your backs! I kid, I kid… though there is a scourge of headless wedding snapshots reminiscent of those terrible obesity article sidebar pics that feature anonymous, headless overweight people who are supposed to let the American citizenry how fat we all are. Not, of course, that most of the brides, etc. in Headless Horseman style snaps are carrying around extra poundage – not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind – it’s just that the photographs are thematically similar.
I’m in the hate camp on this one – with apologies to wedding photography studio STUDIO:castillero, which is awesome overall. It’s just that I’ve been seeing a lot of headless wedding parties recently, and I’m not sure why. Is it so the viewer is compelled to focus on the wedding dress, tuxedos, bridesmaids’ dresses, and whatever bridal accessories can be seen in the shot? It’s not that there’s anything wrong with this kind of style of wedding photograph, I suppose. I just don’t get the appeal, myself. How about you?
Yeah, not a big fan. Especially since I’m assuming there’s a very similar photo in the album that DOES show the heads, which makes this photo a bit extraneous. It’s not like you can see the outfits that much better. Plus, human emotion always adds so much to an image.
That said, I don’t necessarily mind much closer or even more cropped shots, such as one of all their feet, or just their arms holding the bouquets. Those give a much better look at the shoes and flowers than you might get in a full-length shot, instead of looking like you were just too close to the subject and couldn’t zoom out enough.
I would have thought this was a privacy-protecting measure and not an “artistic” decision (believe it or not, not everyone wants their photographers to blog their pictures), but the photo dimensions look just about right.
These cropped photos made me think back to this community post on Feministing about boudoir photos, where there was a bit of debate over whether blogged pictures focusing on body parts that aren’t the head were objectification, or just a means to protect the model-for-a-day’s privacy.
Then again, it seems everyone on Weddingbee has been posting their boudoir photos, with their faces definitely visible. Uh, I thought those were supposed to be a private gift?
People post their boudoir photos on the Internet, 37 Butter Knives? Eek! While I know for a fact that everyone who reads Manolo for the Brides (and Manolo for the Home, and all the other Manolo-branded blogs) is drop-dead gorgeous, I’m thinking I might not want to see most people’s boudoir photos.
I suppose this means that the photographs can be used in advertising without compromising the privacy of the wedding party… Also they allow the focus to be on details. I’m still not convinced either myself though, to be honest…
They look like ads, not wedding photos. Ads for the bridesmaid dresses in the second photo; some insurance or investment company in the first (I can hear the voice over “Starting your life together is exciting–show your love is eternal by investing with us!”).
In my book weddings are about community, and a community is people. Not their stuff, no matter how pretty. At my first wedding the photog did a pic of our invitation, my bridal bouquet, and our rings…none of which was important 5 years later, when I wished there had been more pictures of my grandfather (who died in the interim).
I prefer to identify people by their faces not their boobs.
Blech. And especially because in that second photo all I can focus on is the wrinkly bridesmaid bosoms. If you’re gonna take the attention off the faces (which I’d so much rather be looking at), make sure that it doesn’t result in a “huh?” shot.