I think wedding photography has taken a turn for the awesome over the past few years. I’m seeing fewer “Okay, all the bridesmaids line up. Smile!” pics and more journalism-style photos, which seem more candid and natural. But there’s one trend I can’t wrap my mind around: the headless wedding portrait.
I’m okay with this super-popular photo if you want to show off your cute shoes and your groom’s quirky socks:
Although that’s starting to feel a little “been there, seen that,” too. But if you want to have a feet shot, cool. It’s your album.
I like this one even more, because it feels a little more natural—even though I’m sure it’s posed.
But this photo, which appeared on Save the Date earlier this week, totally had me scratching my head:
Yes, their outfits are adorable. (That’s why I wound up including the pic, even through I just don’t get it.) But wouldn’t the picture be even better if we could see their faces? I mean, are you going go frame this photo of your headless groomsmen? Put it in your wedding album?
“Mommy, whose the man in the checkered shirt in your wedding album?”
“Well, I just don’t know dear. Since he has no head.”
And there are photos like it all over Pinterest:
I understand that we’re focusing on the dog (or the bouquet, or the Champagne flute) in photos like this, but why NOT get the bride and groom’s faces in the shot? (I know the lens is focused on the dog, but it’s entirely possible to focus on a dog AND two people.)
And what’s going on below? Is that boutonniere so fantastic that you don’t want to ruin it with … the groom’s face?
Obviously each of these photos is one of thousands you’ll get back from your photographer, but I don’t know why they made the final cut to begin with.
Are you guys into headless wedding photos? Or do you think it’s just photographers taking a little too much artistic license?