The wedding - setting the stage, part 3: The hired photographers

First, let me say that as hard-working professionals with a job to do and the determination and will to get it done, I greatly respect the two individuals to the right - the still photographer and the videographer who works with him. Second, I must also say that, for me personally, they were my bane, my nightmare. They took all my plans on how I would shoot this wedding and utterly destroyed them.

Yet, how can I hold it against them? They were in their country, making their living. They had a job to do and they did it. They are guided by a photographic philosophy that is the exact opposite of mine; a philosophy that when exercised completely dominates the scene and makes it impossible for a shooter such as me to exercise his philosophy.

Yet, how can I say that my philosophy is better than theirs'?

Perhaps theirs' is better than mine.

I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it is.

It had been Soundarya's intent that I would be the only photographer to document the wedding, but the groom's family wanted to bring in a photographic team of their own, a team that had worked for their family before and had pleased them with the product that they produced.

It was their right to do so and they exercised that right.

Here, in the above setting, this did not really pose much of a problem for me - but inside, during the actual ceremony, it put obstacles before me that seemed to be insurmountable - yet I had a no choice but to surmount them as best I could.

This was the problem: while a photographer cannot help but interfere a bit in any event that he shoots, my philosophy is to interfere the least amount possible and still do a good job. Their philosophy - and let me say that in India it is not only a philosophy that is accepted, it is expected, embraced and appreciated - is to interfere to the maximum amount possible.

So maybe for India, it is a better philosophy than mine.

By my philosophy, the very act of shooting an event with a flash constitutes interference. First, the flash interferes with the natural light. If I find that I absolutely must use a flash, then I will find a surface to bounce it off of, to soften it up a bit, to direct it at the subject at angle that allows it to throw in some shape definition.

What I would never do is point the flash straight at the subject, except, perhaps, very rarely, on a low-power discharge as fill light. When a photographer aims the flash straight at his subject, it just takes whatever quality of light and subtlety of tone that might exist and wipes it out. It washes out shape and definition. It creates a pasty image.

Yet, the first Indian wedding photographer that I ever encountered quite literally chastised me for shooting without a flash. "Straight on flash - that's the best light in the world," he told me. "It's the only good light. You can't get a good picture if you don't use straight on flash." He actively sought that straight-in, pasty, washed-out look and treasured it when he got it. His clients were happy with his work.

The natural look disgusted him and he made certain that I knew it. 

The second way a flash interferes is that it can simply be annoying to people to have flashes going off in their eyes all the time.

So I try always to avoid flash.

But India is a place where 50 things always seem to be happening at once, so I suppose a flash going off repeatedly at a wedding might not be an annoyance at all. Probably, no one even notices it.

Here, you can see the difference in philosophy. Note the little red light that says his flash is recharging, but still ready to fire. Also note the two windows through which a nice, soft, yet defining light pours down upon the beautiful bride.

I would (and did) use that window light. I would turn Soundarya just a little bit, so that the window light would give some shape and definition to her face; I would allow the light to preserve what it could of the natural subtleties of the scene as it actually appeared before me.

In just a moment, this photographer will blast his flash in full-force, and wipe out that window light and all the shape-defining and tonal subtleties that it carries.

But this was not really the problem for me. He could shoot his flash all through the wedding and I could shoot available light and only very rarely, perhaps one, maybe two frames at most, if at all, would his flash overlap into my exposure.

The problem was the photographer's assistant, the videographer. He had his own, straight-in-light, and it was a monster - a genuine flood light. Raised a short distance above his video camera, it poured a bright, intense, glare down upon everything that it pointed at, and anytime anything was happening, that light was on.

If I was by the videographer, then it washed my pictures out. If I was off to the side, it might cast some shape and definition into the scene, but it was harsh shape and definition, with hard, dark, shadows falling straight behind the subject.

If I were opposite him, then it was just like shooting straight into the sun. I could hardly even see. The lens flare was awful.

As for the photographer, who was also a choreographer, he also had no qualms about pushing me out of the way. He usually did this by holding one hand out, palm toward me. If there was no contact, he meant "move right now!" If he was not satisfied, then that hand would push against me.

Now, I am not a photographer who lets any other photographer push me around. Once, while I was shooting a story that was also an international event, a videographer for one of the major television news networks bulled butt-into me as I was framing my picture and forcefully shoved me out of his way. I retook my position and he wound up face down in the snow with a major lens cleaning task ahead of him and did not try such a stunt again.

But this was different. I was in another man's country and he was making his living and this was Soundarya's wedding and I did not want to take any action that might put a blemish on her special and beautiful day, so I would yield and look for another angle, even if I did not like that angle so well.

Except for one time: I had a scene framed just the way I wanted it when the photographer put his shoulder against mine and began to push. I held my ground. He pushed harder. I held my ground still, shooting as I did. He pushed still harder.

And then I said, "Did you know that I came all the way from Alaska at my own expense to shoot this wedding?" He eased off. But that was the only time he did so. He considered the wedding his and saw me as interloper.

Yet, a thought occurred to me. If I somehow insisted on having my way, on shooting this as I would like, then perhaps I would be an interloper. I was shooting a wedding in India. In India, or least in Bangalore, it appears to me that this is the way weddings are shot - with a photographer blasting away with a flash while at the same time directing a videographer who has a monster flood-light atop his camera.

Obviously, their clients like their work or they would be out of business.

This means that it is all part of the scene - even that monster flood-light is part of the natural scene; it is the light that is available and if I am really any good, then I just had to work with it - harshness, shadows, and all - and somehow make it work. 

And I would be an "Ugly American" if I tried to make it otherwise.

So I did not shoot Sandy's wedding the way I had wanted to, I shot it the way circumstance mandated and did the best that I could. I shot it as it was, not as I wanted it to be. And really, to one degree or another, that's how a shoot almost always is. Nothing is ever completely as you would want. A photographer must be flexible.

In this case, really flexible.

The wedding - setting the stage, part 2: the chefs

You are looking at a master chef. Absolutely. I cannot remember what this pancake-like bread was called, but I would soon eat some for my breakfast, not with syrup, but dipped in various sauces, all flavored by Indian spices.

Oh, my! So delicious! We would be fed two meals at the wedding, breakfast and dinner. Try to find such superb Indian cuisine anywhere among all the fine restaurants in New York City, San Francisco, Washington, D.C. ... I'm not saying it can't be done, maybe it can, but I have yet to sample it.

Were these guys to bring their magic to the right place in the US, what a success they could become!

How grand it would be if that place could be Wasilla!

Do you get the idea that I liked their cooking?

Preparing the food, # 1.

Preparing the food, # 2.

A culinary artisan.

Culinary artisans at work.

Cabbage in the process of being transformed.

Master strolls through his domain.

The cutting and chopping crew.

Head man of the cutting and chopping crew.

Three artisans with coconuts.

Breakfast still life.

Come breakfast time, the cutters become servers. Before you, you see my dish, but it is not a dish, it is a banana leaf. There is more food coming - much more. Being a mannerdly person, I will eat my breakfast with my bare right hand and so it will become very difficult to take any more pictures until I finish and wash my hands.

And the coffee! I miss it already.

Now, please note the quality of light that seeps through the windows, the softness yet contrast as light plays against shadow. I was thrilled to find such light and to be able to work with it. It was exactly what I wanted to have throughout the entire wedding, and I looked forward to having a good time with that light as it played off Soundarya and Anil and all that happened around them.

But, as it would turn out, I would have little opportunity beyond what you see here to make use of this light. With a few small exceptions, this would be it. 

In my next "setting the stage" post, you will find out why.

The wedding - setting the stage, part 1: The musicians

Horn player # 1.

Horn player # 2.

Horn players #1 and #2 together. (Please note: the numbers do not mean any kind of rank and are quite arbitrary on my part).

The drummer.

All the players, making music together.

There will be four parts to this "setting the stage" series: The musicians, the cooks, the photographers, and the bride and groom. All will go up today, no more than hours apart, maybe less.

Then I will get into the wedding itself. Compared to a typical American wedding, it is so vast and has so many parts, far too many for me to include here, that I have no idea how I am going to handle it. I will figure it out. 

I know right now, though, I will never be able to do it the justice that it deserves.

Pre-wedding function for the groom

As I mentioned, a separate pre-wedding function was held for the groom, Anil Kumar, as Sandy's bangle function took place. It was held at the wedding hall, attached to a temple, and was nearing completion when I arrived. 

I found the groom and those guiding him engaged in prayer.

Again, I invite any member of the wedding party from India to better explain the significance of what is happening here.

The praying continues.

Soon, the wedding will begin. Soundarya's father, Ravi, carries bride and groom figurines which will be used in the ceremony.

The figurines.

Soundarya's bangle function

Just before the function begins, Soundarya gets a little touch-up from her mother.

Now, I will try a bit of an experiment. I wish that as I prepare this, Sandy, or one of my other Indian relatives, was right here beside me, to guide me through, to tell me the meaning behind each and every happening pictured in my photographs. 

Once Melanie and I reached India, everything happened very fast; we were always on the move and I never had time to back up to anything that had already taken place to get a better explanation of it.

So, although it is a given that the ceremony is meant to bless Soundarya as she is about to become a bride, and to help bind her more closely to the man who, in just hours, will be her husband, I am not going to try to explain the meaning behind the events in the pictures. I will surely make some mistakes if I do. Instead, I invite my Indian friends and relatives who might look at this to explain properly.

I will later add in any explanations that I receive.*

Soundarya with her mother-in-law to be.

As she kneels at his feet, Soundarya both shows her respect for her maternal grandfather and receives blessings from him.

She does the same for her parents...

...and her aunt and uncle...

Her face is painted and her forehead marked. 

Sandy is blessed by her soon-to-be mother-in-law.

Mother-in-law blessing continues.

Now she is cared for by her own mother.

Soundarya and her mother.

Her mother loves her greatly.

She touches fruit that is held before her.

Her sister and mother-in-law to be present coconuts.

As the function draws toward its end. Elsewhere, the groom is going through a ceremony of his own.

*06/03/09 - Soundarya has sent an explanation:

"And about the bangles function, 'turmeric' is considered very auspicious anywhere in India. They say that a woman, right from her childhood has to apply turmeric paste on her body. Medical views - it keeps yor skin soft & glows & also prevents a lot of hair growth on the body. Belief  - turmeric & kumkum (the red powder we put on her fore head?) is considered to very auspicious & when ladies bless the bride with it, it's said that she lives with her husband happily for many years. This fuction is more to do with the Groom as he is blessed to live longer. I don't know how well to put this across but in simple words, 'The married couple should live longer & with each other.' Here in India, a widow shouldn't wear bangles or any ornaments, she is not allowed to decorate her forehead with kumkum & is also asked to wear a white saree to indicate that she's a widow.

"So, now I guess you understand why we have that fuction...to bless the bride, praying for her forever happiness with -bangles, kumkum & turmeric?"