Had pictures done today
Karen Simmons
>
> The part about displaying it at the wedding sounds pretty vain
> to me (I know you said you aren't doing that). So are there
> groomals? And are those displayed at receptions too?
IN many places it is a tradition to have a formal portrait of the bride
done before the wedding. One of the portraits is then enlarged, framed,
and placed on an easel for display at the wedding. Usually then the
parents of the bride keep the portrait in their home after the wedding.
No, there is not a tradition of doing grooms portraits like this as well
- but you must remember that this tradition (where it exists) came
during a time when the bride was the center of attention and her family
was the one paying for the majority of the wedding.
It is also, to the best of my knowledge, a very southern tradition,
although I've seen it done in other locations as well.
While many brides still have formal portraits done in their wedding
gowns (after all, how often will you wear this type of formal white gown
and have hair, makeup, and flowers done this way?), the tradition of
displaying a formal portrait (or an informal one) has gradually shifted
to having a "couples" portrait on display. Many couples now display an
enlarged portrait from an engagement session or a joint "pre-wedding"
session at the reception, then have that portrait to hang in their home
after the wedding.
Hope this helps some,
Karen
--
----------------------------
Karen Simmons, Photographer
Atlanta, Georgia
----------------------------
Rechelle
Well Matt & I have one more step in wedding stuff
done. We went down today and had our engagement & my
bridals done. We'll have them back next week. The
photographer has signed limited copyright over to us,
enough so that we can scan them in for friends &
family. So I'm excited! He kept saying how
photographic Matt & I are and how easy we made his
job. It was nice. Should have some wonderful
pictures.
Warmest regards,
Rechelle
to Matt January 8, 2000
Melissa Algaze
you do with them?
Rechelle
> What are Bridals? Do you actually wear your dress for these? What do
> you do with them?
>
> Rechelle wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> ><snipped>
It's a set of pictures done of the bride in her wedding gown done before
the wedding. Some people blow up the pictures to have at the wedding but
we're just going to keep them for ourselves & family and blow up an
engagement picture.
Melissa Algaze
you said you aren't doing that). So are there groomals? And are those
displayed at receptions too?
Rechelle
not just my day, it's his too. There probably could be groomals *G* as long as
the groom owned his own tux. I doubt Matt & I will even show any pictures at
the reception since it's a small wedding with only family and a couple close
friends.
Hollybear
portraits done. but Ben didn't go with me since he didn't want to see me in
my dress. My parent's have a big picture of me in my dress at thier home
since I am the only child.
Holly ...celebrating our first anniversary today!!
Christiane E. Rutyna
> Holly ...celebrating our first anniversary today!!
Congratulations! We hit 6 months on Monday...
Christi
Noe Spaemme
>The part about displaying it at the wedding sounds pretty vain to me (I know
>you said you aren't doing that). So are there groomals? And are those
>displayed at receptions too?
Properly, bridal portraits are not displayed at the wedding as they are in very
poor taste. There is no purpose anyway as everyone will be seeing the bride in
her full regalia anyway.
Hope this helps,
Noe
C. J. Morgan
: > The part about displaying it at the wedding sounds pretty vain
: > to me (I know you said you aren't doing that). So are there
: > groomals? And are those displayed at receptions too?
Karen Simmons (klsi...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: IN many places it is a tradition to have a formal portrait of the bride
: done before the wedding. One of the portraits is then enlarged, framed,
: and placed on an easel for display at the wedding.
In these contemporary times, I certainly go along with Melissas view --
an enlarged framed pic of the bride in gown on display at the wedding
does come across as vain. A tradition from yesteryear perhaps better
reconsidered and modified.
**************
Karen Simmons wrote:
: Usually then the
: parents of the bride keep the portrait in their home after the wedding.
: No, there is not a tradition of doing grooms portraits like this as well
: - but you must remember that this tradition (where it exists) came
: during a time when the bride was the center of attention and her family
: was the one paying for the majority of the wedding.
: It is also, to the best of my knowledge, a very southern tradition,
: although I've seen it done in other locations as well.
Well, this is the thing: I'm sure it's a tradition which, as you well
pointed out, once had significant meaning. But some traditions -- and I
think this is one of them -- perhaps would benefit from a bit of
contemporary modifying.
****************
Karen Simmons wrote:
: While many brides still have formal portraits done in their wedding
: gowns (after all, how often will you wear this type of formal white gown
: and have hair, makeup, and flowers done this way?), the tradition of
: displaying a formal portrait (or an informal one) has gradually shifted
: to having a "couples" portrait on display. Many couples now display an
: enlarged portrait from an engagement session or a joint "pre-wedding"
: session at the reception, then have that portrait to hang in their home
: after the wedding.
And therein is the updated modification. At the wedding reception, an
enlarged framed image of the bride & groom as an engaged couple actually
looks pretty nice.
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
Melissa
why would you need a picture? Ego! Ego! Bridezilla!
Noe Spaemme wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 03:42:54 GMT, Melissa Algaze <muhl...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >The part about displaying it at the wedding sounds pretty vain to me (I know
> >you said you aren't doing that). So are there groomals? And are those
> >displayed at receptions too?
>
Jennifer
it wasn't actually *proper* (thanks, Noe, for your input there.
What we're doing is using old wedding photos as centerpieces, along with
candles -- our parents, grandparents (actually, don't have wedding photos,
but we're using ones taken around the time of their weddings), aunts and
uncles. We'll have a small card to label them (primarily so each side knows
who is who.) We thought it would be a fun way to recognize our families.
Fortunately, our parents are still married, otherwise this wouldn't be quite
as effective.
- Jennifer (to Jerry, March 25, 2000)
Melissa <muhl...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:38541662...@mediaone.net...
calypso
wedding tradition, and it is not considered in poor taste in my part of the
country at all (Houston, Tx). Etiquette certainly takes into consideration
cultural differences, and it is certainly in poor taste to dismiss the
customs of others as improper. The bridal portraits are also used for
announcements of the wedding in the newspaper.
--
calypso
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
"Noe Spaemme" <rita...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:A356FA6C1FAEBE55.31EC1F68...@lp.airnews.net...
Melissa
> The bridal portraits are also used for announcements of the wedding in the
> newspaper.
So the groom doesn't get in the newspaper, just the bride? If this is the case,
why even bother having him at the wedding if he is being treated like a second
class citizen. It seems to me the whole bridal industry is like this.
Something being a regional tradition doesn't make it proper.
Puester
>
> In these contemporary times, I certainly go along with Melissas view --
> an enlarged framed pic of the bride in gown on display at the wedding
> does come across as vain. A tradition from yesteryear perhaps better
> reconsidered and modified.
>
> **************
When we lived in New England, a neighbor had a 24x36 inch (or larger, it was
HUGE!) portrait, hand painted, in an ornate museum frame, of her in all her
bridal finery hanging in THE most prominant place in her living room. I was
never able to walk into the room without thinking "So what ELSE have you done
with your life???" Fortunately I was more tactful in those days than I am
now.... ;-)
gloria p
Hollybear
normal. As for the newspaper, the engagement annoucement has both the B and
G picture together. Then for the night before the wedding, there is usually
a write up of parties etc...again w/ their pict. together. Some bride's
chose to have the wedding write up done w/ the bridal portrait pict. only,
but we had our formal wedding photo that accompanied ours.
So, my town is small , old town. Where everyone knows everyone else and all
this is seen as in good taste, but I don't expect everyone to agree on that
with me. Guess it depends on where you live....
Holly
Ericka E. Kammerer
Rechelle wrote:
>
> Ok feeling the need to defend myself. We are not blowing up any bridals,
> they will be in an album for us to view. We ARE blowing up an engagement
> for the wedding day, since it is both of our day. We did not have any
> announcements in the papers, but if we did it would've been with our
> engagements. The only reason we had the bridals done was because it was
> included free with our package. Just FYI.
I'm confused. I thought the issue was whether or not it was
appropriate to display a photo of one's self at one's
wedding (or any other event one is hosting, for that matter), not
whether
or not it was appropriate to have bridal portraits done in general. Am
I missing something?
I think I would feel odd putting out a photo of myself in my
wedding clothes at my wedding for several reasons. To me, it would
feel a bit like advertising--like a poster outside a theater. I
think I'd also worry that the comparison between the photo and the
real thing wouldn't be favorable to me! ;-) Plus, I can't quite
imagine *why* one would want to do this (besides simply that others
in one's circle have done it). What's the advantage?
In a related vein...what are people doing with any larger
portraits from their wedding? I've always been taught that it
isn't proper to have portraits of one's self in public areas of
the house, though there are obviously shades of grey here. There's
a big difference between a few family photos on the piano and a
huge portrait over the sofa ;-) We have a 16x20 portrait from our
wedding that is not yet framed (I know, I know...it's only been almost
seven years... ;-) and I'm really not sure what to do with it. On
the one hand, I don't feel comfortable putting it front and center
in, say, the living room. On the other hand, the reason we chose
this particular photo for a wall portrait is that it doesn't look
like a typical wedding photo. It's a very "fine arty" print (for
lack of a better term). It has sort of a Belle Epoch feel to it,
in sepia toned B&W. In fact, if people see it, they often don't
realize it's *us* because it doesn't look like it's a contemporary
piece. Stylistically, it would be a lovely addition to our more
public spaces, but I still can't get over the feeling that it ought
not to be there. Seems kind of silly to stick it in the bedroom,
though, and the "family room" is currently toy central until the
kids are a bit older, so I'm not putting *anything* valuable in
there! ;-) I suppose this is why I can't seem to get up the
gumption to have it framed--can't decide where it belongs! Well,
that and I still have thoughts of creating a fabric covered mat
decorated with antique-looking silk ribbon embroidery, which surely
isn't going to materialize until and unless I get a *lot* more free
time ;-) I guess I've landed myself in a situation where I have a
piece that I purchased because I loved it as a piece of art,
not really thinking that it's *more* than just a piece of art.
Best wishes,
Ericka Kammerer
Karen Simmons
> I'm confused. I thought the issue was whether or not it was
> appropriate to display a photo of one's self at one's wedding (
> or any other event one is hosting, for that matter), not whether
> or not it was appropriate to have bridal portraits done in general.
> Am I missing something?
Ericka - you may have missed the very beginning of the thread when - I
think it was Rechelle - said that she and her FH had engagment photos
done and she had had bridal portraits done. It developed into a more
general discussion of what does one do with bridal portraits ... and
went from there. I don't think anyone is questioning bridal portraits
per se, just the enlarging and displaying at the wedding/reception of
the same.
> We have a 16x20 portrait from our wedding that is not yet framed
> (I know, I know...it's only been almost seven years... ;-) and
> I'm really not sure what to do with it.
> It's a very "fine arty" print (for lack of a better term). It
> has sort of a Belle Epoch feel to it, in sepia toned B&W. In fact,
> if people see it, they often don't realize it's *us* because it
> doesn't look like it's a contemporary piece.
It sounds to me like it would be a lovely photo to use as an "anchor"
piece for a gallery of family portraits. Use this piece as the center
and arrange photos of the children and more recent family photos around
it.
OTOH, if it's not recognizable as a "portrait" in the contemporary
sense, I see no problem with having it on display as a piece of "fine
art" in your home. It's certainly an original, and no one other than
you has to know what it really is. IMO, sometimes those are the best.
I did a photograph of a little girl with golden curls in a blue dress
walking in a garden from the back in black & white - hand tinted it for
the parents and they have it on their piano. Frequently people ask
where they bought the "artwork" on their piano and are shocked and
surprised to realize it is a "portrait" of the daughter.
Noe Spaemme
>That's silly! There's not an issue of propriety here. This is a Southern
>wedding tradition, and it is not considered in poor taste in my part of the
>country at all (Houston, Tx). Etiquette certainly takes into consideration
>cultural differences, and it is certainly in poor taste to dismiss the
>customs of others as improper. The bridal portraits are also used for
>announcements of the wedding in the newspaper.
Etiquette does indeed take into account regional customs. However, I am acutely
familiar with the customs of the South and terribly familiar with Houston (which
is technically considered Southwest) and the displaying of the bridal portrait
is simply improper by the best of Houston Society.
For more on the customs of "the South" pick up a copy of "The Bride Did What?"
by Martha Woodham, a society watcher from Atlanta. No where does she proclaim
the portrait display as proper by standards of the South.
If you can find a published expert who says it's proper to display a bridal
portrait at a wedding, I'll gladly include it in future comments on the subject.
Until that time, I stand by the well-respected etiquette notables who say such
display is garish.
Hope this helps,
Noe
Melissa
seeing the annoucements and details of a party that they aren't invited to?
Rechelle
they will be in an album for us to view. We ARE blowing up an engagement
for the wedding day, since it is both of our day. We did not have any
announcements in the papers, but if we did it would've been with our
engagements. The only reason we had the bridals done was because it was
included free with our package. Just FYI.
Rechelle
Melissa Algaze wrote:
> What are Bridals? Do you actually wear your dress for these? What do
> you do with them?
>
> Rechelle wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
Rechelle
going on about how bad etiquette wise bridals are, and I felt like they were
talking about me. I've become a wee bit defensive on these NGs because of a
certain person. Largest I'm going to blow any pictures from the wedding to is
8x10. The rest will probably be 5x7's. I don't need or want anything bigger.
I may even get some wallet sizes.
For your picture, how about hanging it in your bedroom? That way it'll be for
you & your hubby's eyes only without offending anyone or seeming "vain".
Warmest regards,
Rechelle
Ericka E. Kammerer" wrote:
> Rechelle wrote:
> >
> > Ok feeling the need to defend myself. We are not blowing up any bridals,
> > they will be in an album for us to view. We ARE blowing up an engagement
> > for the wedding day, since it is both of our day. We did not have any
> > announcements in the papers, but if we did it would've been with our
> > engagements. The only reason we had the bridals done was because it was
> > included free with our package. Just FYI.
>
> I'm confused. I thought the issue was whether or not it was
> appropriate to display a photo of one's self at one's
> wedding (or any other event one is hosting, for that matter), not
> whether
> or not it was appropriate to have bridal portraits done in general. Am
> I missing something?
> I think I would feel odd putting out a photo of myself in my
> wedding clothes at my wedding for several reasons. To me, it would
> feel a bit like advertising--like a poster outside a theater. I
> think I'd also worry that the comparison between the photo and the
> real thing wouldn't be favorable to me! ;-) Plus, I can't quite
> imagine *why* one would want to do this (besides simply that others
> in one's circle have done it). What's the advantage?
> In a related vein...what are people doing with any larger
> portraits from their wedding? I've always been taught that it
> isn't proper to have portraits of one's self in public areas of
> the house, though there are obviously shades of grey here. There's
> a big difference between a few family photos on the piano and a
> huge portrait over the sofa ;-) We have a 16x20 portrait from our
> wedding that is not yet framed (I know, I know...it's only been almost
> seven years... ;-) and I'm really not sure what to do with it. On
> the one hand, I don't feel comfortable putting it front and center
> in, say, the living room. On the other hand, the reason we chose
> this particular photo for a wall portrait is that it doesn't look
> like a typical wedding photo. It's a very "fine arty" print (for
> lack of a better term). It has sort of a Belle Epoch feel to it,
> in sepia toned B&W. In fact, if people see it, they often don't
> realize it's *us* because it doesn't look like it's a contemporary
Wende A. Feller
>
> > In my southern town, displying the bridal portrait at the reception is quite
> > normal. As for the newspaper, the engagement annoucement has both the B and
> > G picture together. Then for the night before the wedding, there is usually
> > a write up of parties etc...again w/ their pict. together. Some bride's
> > chose to have the wedding write up done w/ the bridal portrait pict. only,
> > but we had our formal wedding photo that accompanied ours.
> > So, my town is small , old town. Where everyone knows everyone else and all
> > this is seen as in good taste, but I don't expect everyone to agree on that
> > with me. Guess it depends on where you live....
Melissa wrote:
>
> Just curious about this local tradition. Does it cause problems with people
> seeing the announcements and details of a party that they aren't invited to?
It used to be that local papers everywhere but the largest cities
printed *long* descriptions of every wedding that was submitted to
them... people read the descriptions for fun, the way people read the
"Society Pages" of the New York Times. I remember that my hometown
newspaper, back in the very early 1970s, used to give details of what
the wedding party and MOB wore. Papers in very small towns still do it,
and you can even find small towns where the newspaper will list who had
whom over for dinner last week. Our current paper (the Troy Record --
"All the news that fits, we misspell") lavishes its love and space on
the obits instead, which is interesting but less cheerful. The custom
*was* so widespread that standard etiquette books of the 1950s and 1960s
routinely included a section on how to handle your newspaper
announcement; this information doesn't seem to be as common in today's
wedding planning books.
Wende
Wende A. Feller
>
> In my southern town, displying the bridal portrait at the reception is quite
> normal. As for the newspaper, the engagement annoucement has both the B and
> G picture together. Then for the night before the wedding, there is usually
> a write up of parties etc...again w/ their pict. together. Some bride's
> chose to have the wedding write up done w/ the bridal portrait pict. only,
> but we had our formal wedding photo that accompanied ours.
> So, my town is small , old town. Where everyone knows everyone else and all
> this is seen as in good taste, but I don't expect everyone to agree on that
> with me. Guess it depends on where you live....
Small towns often have customs that are off the main highway of standard
etiquette. The only risk in following those customs occurs when the
other family (or a major portion of the guest list) comes from somewhere
else. In that situation, you should think about how your customs might
impress them, and they should come prepared to be good sports about
following the prevailing customs in Frostbite Falls.
Wende
Ericka E. Kammerer
Rechelle wrote:
> For your picture, how about hanging it in your bedroom? That way it'll be for
> you & your hubby's eyes only without offending anyone or seeming "vain".
It's certainly an option, except that the print would be very
out of placed stylistically in our bedroom :-( Our bedroom is white
and lavender and sort of "cottage-y", if you will, and pretty much
completely at odds with the feeling in the print, which is a very formal
looking thing in sepia tones that looks like an antique.
Frankly, when you get right down to it, there isn't any good
place for us to hang that darned print (and a few other pieces of
art as well)! Guess we need to get moving on house shopping... ;-)
Ericka Kammerer
Rechelle
Is this picture of you & your husband? If so, you could hang it almost anywhere,
because it's of the 2 of you. At least, that's my feeling on this.
Rechelle
Tim Fischer
"Wende A. Feller" <wfe...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> ...Papers in very small towns still do it,
> and you can even find small towns where the newspaper will list who
had
> whom over for dinner last week.
Hee, Hee!
I grew up in a town of less than 300 people. We shared a newspaper
with several surrounding towns about the same size. Last I knew, they
were still doing the "who had who for dinner" news, but it's been about
five years since I've read that paper...
I used to be embarassed to come home from college, as it would be
mentioned in the paper! Believe me, everyone knows EVERYTHING that
goes on in such a small town. And since there's nothing else to do
there, they make other people's business their own...
Of course, when "Son comes home from college" makes the news, a wedding
is a VERY big deal. Our engagement announcement was put in with a 5x7"
picture (we only gave them a wallet-sized)!
Life in the small town is a different kind of culture. Not
necessarilly bad-- my Mom thinks it's very unusual that I don't even
know some of my neighbors names...
-Tim
(& Cathy, 10/9/99)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joe Pucillo
> Many couples now display an
> enlarged portrait from an engagement session or a joint "pre-wedding"
> session at the reception, then have that portrait to hang in their home
> after the wedding.
Here in the mid-Atlantic, I receive requests about a "Signature
Portrait" - an engagement portrait enlarged to 16x20, then matted
with 8-10" on each side, where guests can sign and give well-wishes.
Some couples use these portraits instead of a guest book. The
resulting 30x40 "portrait" can be framed and saved or displayed in
the couple's home.
Usually, it is a casual portrait of the couple in an outdoor
location, but some couples opt for formal portraits, and yes, some
want only the bride in her gown.
--
Joe Pucillo http://www.JoePucillo.com
Baltimore, Maryland USA
Katherine Teague Sullivan
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:26:45 -0600, "calypso" <cal...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> >That's silly! There's not an issue of propriety here. This is a Southern
> >wedding tradition, and it is not considered in poor taste in my part of the
> >country at all (Houston, Tx). Etiquette certainly takes into consideration
> >cultural differences, and it is certainly in poor taste to dismiss the
> >customs of others as improper. The bridal portraits are also used for
> >announcements of the wedding in the newspaper.
>
> Etiquette does indeed take into account regional customs. However, I am acutely
> familiar with the customs of the South and terribly familiar with Houston (which
> is technically considered Southwest) and the displaying of the bridal portrait
> is simply improper by the best of Houston Society.
>
> For more on the customs of "the South" pick up a copy of "The Bride Did What?"
> by Martha Woodham, a society watcher from Atlanta. No where does she proclaim
> the portrait display as proper by standards of the South.
Which experts say the display is garish? I never saw it mentioned at all in my
wedding research.
The bridal portrait display at the reception is very common among natives in
Raleigh, NC. It is unknown in Memphis, TN. Both cities are southern but, being
over 600 miles apart, naturally have different customs. No doubt Atlanta's customs
are different still. Surely, being so acutely familiar with the south, you didn't
think it was a homogenous region with a single set of standards? Nor, I am sure,
as an etiquette expert, did you think that the omission of a custom from an
etiquette book indicates its impropriety? (I guess it's also a violation of
etiquette to serve the groom's cake at the reception, because all the etiquette
guides describe handing individually boxed slices to guests as they exit.)
(IMO the custom, while perfectly tasteful, is without benefit; why look at a photo
of the bride, when you can just look up and see her, in the same outfit, no less?
I suppose it originated with the display of a painting of the bride commissioned
for the occasion of her wedding, which makes much more sense.)
--
Katherine Sullivan Nortel Networks
kte...@nortelnetworks.com Research Triangle Park, NC
Hollybear
Holly
> It used to be that local papers everywhere but the largest cities
> printed *long* descriptions of every wedding that was submitted to
> them... people read the descriptions for fun, the way people read the
> "Society Pages" of the New York Times. I remember that my hometown
> newspaper, back in the very early 1970s, used to give details of what
> the wedding party and MOB wore. Papers in very small towns still do it,
> and you can even find small towns where the newspaper will list who had
Hollybear
from many "gossip" tidbits, my family and friends have only heard nice
comments on the portrait my family had at the reception. But then again, in
my small town in Georgia...everyone does it!! Some weddings I have gone to
have even had wallet size photos of the bride to take home with you!!
Holly
Hollybear
heard very few negative comments on why we did or didn't invite someone to a
party. We had a huge number of showers and most people got invited to at
least one of our showers (we used these guestlists to cross reference for
our wedding list). But we did have a large wedding (around 750 guests...some
of which were very far away and only came in for the wedding), so it was
hard for us to get feedback from everyone. Sorry if this wasn't too
helpful...
Holly
Tony and Suzy
> > Hollybear wrote:
> >
> > > In my southern town, displying the bridal portrait at the reception is quite
> > > normal. As for the newspaper, the engagement annoucement has both the B and
> > > G picture together. Then for the night before the wedding, there is usually
> > > a write up of parties etc...again w/ their pict. together. Some bride's
> > > chose to have the wedding write up done w/ the bridal portrait pict. only,
> > > but we had our formal wedding photo that accompanied ours.
> > > So, my town is small , old town. Where everyone knows everyone else and all
> > > this is seen as in good taste, but I don't expect everyone to agree on that
> > > with me. Guess it depends on where you live....
>
> Melissa wrote:
> >
> > Just curious about this local tradition. Does it cause problems with people
> > seeing the announcements and details of a party that they aren't invited to?
>
We live in a rural southern area and that's the norm here as well. It's standard
for weddings to be announced in great detail Everything from the couple's names to
schools attended. Descriptions of all attire is included as well.
Suzy
married to Tony
10-24-98
--
Christmas: Be Naughty - save Santa the trip.
visit me @ http://www.geocities.com/suzytony.geo
or http://www.geocities.com/suzylove.geo
Noe Spaemme
<kte...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote:
>Noe Spaemme wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:26:45 -0600, "calypso" <cal...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>
>> >That's silly! There's not an issue of propriety here. This is a Southern
>> >wedding tradition, and it is not considered in poor taste in my part of the
>> >country at all (Houston, Tx). Etiquette certainly takes into consideration
>> >cultural differences, and it is certainly in poor taste to dismiss the
>> >customs of others as improper. The bridal portraits are also used for
>> >announcements of the wedding in the newspaper.
>>
>> Etiquette does indeed take into account regional customs. However, I am acutely
>> familiar with the customs of the South and terribly familiar with Houston (which
>> is technically considered Southwest) and the displaying of the bridal portrait
>> is simply improper by the best of Houston Society.
>>
>> For more on the customs of "the South" pick up a copy of "The Bride Did What?"
>> by Martha Woodham, a society watcher from Atlanta. No where does she proclaim
>> the portrait display as proper by standards of the South.
>
>Which experts say the display is garish? I never saw it mentioned at all in my
>wedding research.
Just as a note of curiosity, what research did you do? If the majority of your
research came from bridal magazines, I believe this point can be put to rest
easily.
In answer to your question about who says it's garish, try Martha Woodham, The
Bride Did What?, page 83.
>The bridal portrait display at the reception is very common among natives in
>Raleigh, NC. It is unknown in Memphis, TN. Both cities are southern but, being
>over 600 miles apart, naturally have different customs. No doubt Atlanta's customs
>are different still. Surely, being so acutely familiar with the south, you didn't
>think it was a homogenous region with a single set of standards?
I believe *you* said this practice was accepted in the South, and in particular
Houston. Houston is not the "South" and this is not done in Houston or the other
metropolitan cities of Texas unless culturally demanded.
Ms. Woodham is a writer from Atlanta (which is decidedly in the South) and she
proclaims the trend to be improper.
Please provide me with a published authority who claims this trend to be proper.
> Nor, I am sure,
>as an etiquette expert, did you think that the omission of a custom from an
>etiquette book indicates its impropriety?
How interesting! None of the most recent books by American experts devote a
single paragraph to the public picking of one's nose. However, I feel quite
certain in pronouncing this to be of poor behavior, even if it's not mentioned
in books.
Many improprieties are omitted from the pages of etiquette books. It is presumed
that common sense prevails. A proper person would never presume to be flashy or
devote much time to gathering attention to one's self. Display of the bridal
portrait at the wedding or the reception does just that. Must one read it in a
manual to know that it is self-serving and showy?
>(I guess it's also a violation of
>etiquette to serve the groom's cake at the reception, because all the etiquette
>guides describe handing individually boxed slices to guests as they exit.)
What guides are you reading? I'd really like to know as all the current volumes
state otherwise. For example, if you'll pick up a copy of Emily Post's 16th
Edition Etiquette and read pages 702-703, you'll see that one may box the
groom's cake or it may be served at the reception. Either is correct.
Hope this helps,
Noe
Maggie
to have a bridal portrait made in advance. A key reason is that the
areas two largest papers---one is the daily in the state capital and
another is a daily in a city of about 200,000 require the wedding write
up and the photo to be in their hands 2-3 weeks before the actual
wedding day. They will only run wedding announcements the day after the
wedding. So if you get married on November 20, they want the
announcement and photo on or about Nov. 5 and will run it on Nov. 21.
Yes---it certainly leaves out one of the most important people in the
event---namely the groom. I don't really know why more couples don't
fuss about it. "It's always been done this way" or "That's the way it
is--sorry if you don't like our policies" may discourage some from
raising a fuss about it.
While I would never argue etiquette with Noe, the truth is in our
area---many mothers do want to display a photo of their daughter at the
reception.
Like several other photographers have noted, we have encouraged using a
photo of the bride and groom from their engagement session to display
at the reception or feature with a mat for guests to sign. Ironically
enough, we have difficulty getting some couples to spend more time on
these sessions. Johnny would love to do more photos that illustrate
what the couple is really like or photograph them in a more meaningful
setting than in the studio. But the majority want a studio set-up and
nothing really creative there. Even more puzzling is that the
engagement session is included in most of our packages---there is no
price difference if the couple wants a 20 minute studio shoot or a
couple hours of location shoot.
Regards--
Maggie
In article <831epl$sks$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Hollybear" <lovaas.a...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In my southern town, displying the bridal portrait at the reception is
quite
> normal. As for the newspaper, the engagement annoucement has both the
B and
> G picture together. Then for the night before the wedding, there is
usually
> a write up of parties etc...again w/ their pict. together. Some
bride's
> chose to have the wedding write up done w/ the bridal portrait pict.
only,
> but we had our formal wedding photo that accompanied ours.
> So, my town is small , old town. Where everyone knows everyone else
and all
> this is seen as in good taste, but I don't expect everyone to agree on
that
> with me. Guess it depends on where you live....
>
> Holly
>
>
--
J.Lawrence Photography
Auburn, AL
Karen Simmons
> Even more puzzling is that the engagement session is included in
> most of our packages---there is no price difference if the couple
> wants a 20 minute studio shoot or a couple hours of location shoot.
Maggie - I have the same problem. My engagement/bridal sessions are not
a part of the wedding package, but I do offer them separately. Couples
have a hard time understanding that I'm willing to spend 2 or 3 or 4
hours with them just shooting and having fun. I think most people are
sort of inured to the Sears/Wal-Mart attitude of "line 'em up, shoote
'em, get 'em outta here". Unfortunately that means they think that
their engagement or bridal portraits are going to be the same.
It is funny sometimes to go on location and have the couple sit for
about a dozen snaps and then get up as if to say "well, that's that".
They're so surprised when I keep going.
But then really always the best photos are the ones from later in the
session after the light has dawned. I could probably throw away the
first roll of film from every session for all that I've ever used those
images.
So take note, brides and grooms: if your photographer offers an
engagement session, relax and have fun with it. This ain't no stinkin
Wal-Mart photography (to paraphrase)! *grin*
Lisa S. Gippert
How exciting! I just picked up the engagement pictures for Dave and I (he
looks so handsome). :) We are going to give them to our parents and
Grandmas for Christmas.
I am so geeked!
Tee Hee!
Lisa (to Dave 27 May 2000)
In soc.couples.wedding Rechelle <mrb...@home.com> wrote:
: Hi all,
: Well Matt & I have one more step in wedding stuff
: done. We went down today and had our engagement & my
: bridals done. We'll have them back next week. The
: photographer has signed limited copyright over to us,
: enough so that we can scan them in for friends &
: family. So I'm excited! He kept saying how
: photographic Matt & I are and how easy we made his
: job. It was nice. Should have some wonderful
: pictures.
: Warmest regards,
: Rechelle
: to Matt January 8, 2000
--
*******************************************************************************
Lisa S. Gippert SEM
lsgi...@mtu.edu ASME
MS Candidate in Mechanical Engineering Huskies Pep Band
Michigan Technological University German Club
*******************************************************************************
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.
Lisa S. Gippert
I was thinking about putting up some collections of pictures at the
reception of Dave and I when we were little (separate pictures, we didn't
know each other when we were little) and pictures of Dave and I since we
have been together. I will probably put our engagement picture as the
center focus of the grouping(s). Hopefully I can get enough of a variety
of pictures that there will be many of the guests in them too. I don't
know if this is 'proper', but I think that our guests might enjoy them.
My 'improper' opinion on the whole subject of Bridals at the reception is
that it is your day, do what you want. ('You' being the hc, not
necessarily Rechelle and Matt)
Lisa (to Dave 27 May 2000)
In soc.couples.wedding Rechelle <mrb...@home.com> wrote:
: Ok feeling the need to defend myself. We are not blowing up any bridals,
: they will be in an album for us to view. We ARE blowing up an engagement
: for the wedding day, since it is both of our day. We did not have any
: announcements in the papers, but if we did it would've been with our
: engagements. The only reason we had the bridals done was because it was
: included free with our package. Just FYI.
: Rechelle
Hollybear
had my senior pics. done by this guy in highschool and they were great...so
we went with him again for our wedding!!
And he allowed others at the wedding to snap photos too...which was nice !!
Holly
Nicole
the two of us, and we like our photographer's style. We probably won't have
any official use for them, since our local papers don't accept pictures and we
won't be displaying them at the reception (most likely). We are going for a
more casual, relaxed look to contrast the formal portraits that we'll have
done on our wedding day.
Nicole
to Troy, 6-4-2000
Donna wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Our package doesn't offer engagement photos. I hadn't considered them at
> all, actually, but am now wondering if this is yet another thing I haven't
> fully thought through. What are the pros and cons of having them taken?
>
> Donna
Hollybear
would be done on our wedding day.
Holly