In sickness and health just got “sick.”
(submitted by Janet)
wow- this is my church!!! my parents were married here and (while this couple is not them sadly) i believe they used this same photographer because they have a photo identical to this one. crazy
Oh, my goodness! My husband and I have the SAME wedding shot! We were married in 1993, and it was a fancy shot.
This is the bride. Yes, we’re still married. No, no mullet babies.
I remember at the time being very embarrassed about taking the “looking down from above shot.” I don’t know if you can tell that I’m thinking, “Oh please oh please, I hope this doesn’t turn out.”
As far as the mullet, I loved it at the time (early 90’s.) And I’m equally loving it that it is gone for good.
Janet, so glad to hear that you’re still married. I wouldn’t feel too bad about the double exposure shot. Yesterday’s double exposure wedding photo is today’s black and white photo with the bride’s bouquet in color.
Wow. A good idea in theory though. 😛
it would be even creepier if it was the parents looking down on the wedding.
It appears to me that the officiant is getting the rings from the best man. All the comments above are saying this is from the 80’s….but I don’t think so judging from what everyone wearing. Mid 90’s at latest! The groom just has an unfortunate hair-don’t. Wonder if they are still married and if he is still rockin’ the mullet. Do they have mullet babies?
I had a mullet baby- he wanted to be just like his dad. Over the years it was whittled down to a rat tail. It was finally cut off just a year ago (at the age of 13). His cousin talked him into it (thank you marrisa).
The giants are selecting their reception dinner from the people on the left. RUN!!!!!!!!
Great as a picture over a casket.
Right, because it wouldn’t scare ANYONE. LOL. Could see granny at 102 years old attending a funeral and seeing floating heads above her friends casket. “Okay, we need another photographer and another casket.”
NOT PHOTOSHOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL…I think we can all agree now!!!!
Geez Yoko …. first you broke up the Beatles and now you started a virtual fistfight on AFP.
You’re my kind of woman.
“Tiffani, maid of honor!”
(Looking up) “Y-y-yes?”
“This is a vision, and yes, you are the only one who can see us.”
What scary imagery you’ve planted in my head
Ceremony in the front…honeymoon in the back 🙂
Business in the front, party in the back? No… I believe that would be wedding in the front, reception in the back…..
Now THAT would have been cool! They could be throwing the bouquet or something. This is just weird.
Geez people, Photoshop or darkroom or in-camera technique (e.g. double exposure), like, who really cares? Yoko’s comment (I’m pretty certain) was meant to be humorous since there are so many photos on this site that are accused of being ‘shopped when they may be or not. Aunt Telcia comes to mind:
Exactly! Everyone seems to have missed Yoko’s point.
I think all the attendants are standing way too close.
Hahahaha..Yeah, weird right!
Actually this looks like a double exposure ( film technique). Very popular back in the day of mullets.Then again a good mullet never goes out of style.
Because they were never IN style. Haha.
This picture is Amaaaazing…. It’s like the wedding in Beatlejuice haha
LOL! My thoughts exactly.
Business in front, party in the back.
No, yoko, this was a double exposure. These effects were around well before photoshop. Digital is great, but classic film was way more fun.
Awww…they decided to go with matching hair.
Something about this photo that I don’t like. Can’t quite put my finger on it. Maybe the fact they are looking down at the church. Disrespectful ?? … not sure.
Are you being facetious with that comment? Or are you serious?
It looks like they died on their way away to the reception and forever haunted all further ceremonies … that’s worse than the old “couple in the brandy glass” shot.
LMAO! Reminds me of the old Star Trek on the planet with the gigantic Greek gods looking down on and manipulating the “little” people.
LOL. Classic. My mom was a photographer in this era and did the double exposure with the brandy glass! I helped out in her studio for years and years and never saw wedding proofs that didn’t include a shot like this!
And how many people drink brandy at weddings?
@Yoko: I disagree. I think it was a huge cardboard cutout!
This is not photoshopped in the way we think of it today. This was a typical thing for wedding photos iin the 80’s and 90’s. I am going to assume that was a sarcastic comment and that someone seriously did not know that. Remember kids sarcasm does not translate well through typed words. That being said what is with his face and why does she look like Emma Watson from Harry Potter?
This picture was not “photo-shopped”. This is something photogs did back in the 80’s and 90’s. Maybe some still do, I don’t know.
I worked for a friend who was a wedding photographer back in the mid to late ’80’s. You would not believe how very popular this type of double exposure photograph was back then. I always found them kind of horrifying…like giants looking down at their own miniature wedding. Serious creepy.
If you go back far enough, you can see how popular it was. Floating cabbage patch heads are around here somewhere. And even floating babies. I was a child/teen in the 80s and I have to say that I never thought I would say I am so glad my mom stuck with Ollen Mills.
@ Yoko – that’s old school photo layering. Photogs did it all the time you dingbat.
Does anyone else find it curious that the priest isn’t anywhere near the couple.
Would YOU be? Smart man!
I think this was taken and altered before Photoshop. It’s old school. And so cool.
Back then ‘Photoshop’ was the place you took the roll of film to be developed. Usually near a ‘Camerashop’
They called them “Fotomats.”
It’s weird how couples mirror each other.
I think almost every wedding photographer did this similar shot in the 80’s. Very classic.
Yep, mine did. I was creeped out at our double exposed photos too. Somehow, it made me feel like I was already dead and my future dead self was watching my wedding in this creepy dead Green Giant way. It was very disturbing and I didn’t order any of those proofs — nor ever eat Green Giant greenbeans again…
Oh boy. I am so glad I wasn’t married in the 80s. I was married in 97 – our worse pictures were the ones showing people’s feet. And they were NOT floating in midair. Wow, if they were I would have left the building. Imagine, floating FEET. Now THAT’S some problem!
Something about this is screaming out “Don’t look behind the curtain!” ..
Wedding in the front party in the back.
Good job Tony 🙂
I have to say, I used to be a bridal consultant and I’ve seen a lot of wedding photos. This is by far the most bizarre. Lovin the freshly cut atomic mullet, though.
Yoko – that’s not photoshopped – that’s how 80’s professional photography looked. good grief.
It is photoshopped however it was done by the couple’s wedding photographer as part of the final wedding photos.
it’s just plain scary
I don’t know what’s funnier, the picture or the last post above mine!! LOL!!!! really?
They should’ve been on crosses.
Debra, you made me spit out my tea I am laughing so hard.
Now THAT’S funny!
Please tell me that’s not God.
Looks like the Vigo the Carpathian from Ghostbusters!!
Ah, The Mullet. Also known as The Kentucky Waterfall, The Shlong (short & long) … business in the front – party in the back!
LOL @ Kentucky Waterfall…too funny! 😉
Never heard of the Kentucky Waterfall. I like it 🙂
How about Hockey Hair? Have you heard that one?
That’s the REAL deal Yoko, there was a time when there was not version one of PS.
Yeah, and back then, it was common for people to have enormous Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade-style balloons made of themselves to put behind the altar in the church. Those were the days!
I love how far apart the attendants are standing. I sense some debauchery at the rehearsal dinner!
That’s just creepy looking. Looks like they’re dead and watching themselves get married or something.
Thats what I thought too. Very creepy indeed!
Well, this was obviously photoshopped.
I think back then it was called double exposure. Either way it’s awkward.
For once, I agree.
Ummm, yaaaa… no kidding! LOL!
No, I think they got a mural specially made for this. And the congregation will forever bear witness to their union.
My guess would actually be a double exposure. I doubt this is a digital image.
No way! I was AT this wedding and there were 2 HUGE ghost-like people hovering around…dressed just like the bride and groom.
hey thats funny!
HOW can you say that?? Don’t you know it’s the ghosts of Chrismas past looking over them?
Ghosts of mullets past…
Uh, thank you Captain Obvious. 😉
No, thank YOU, Miss Ingthepoint.
LOL my thoughts exactly!
Well, I am not sure. I think we are witnessing the photographic capturing of Mr & Mrs God.
Actually, I think that one qualifies for a “dodge and burn” using chemicals and a darkroom!
Really???? Ya think???
i disagree. definitely not ohotoshopped.
Not photo shopped because it didn’t exist then. That was a popular photo package pic back in the 70s and 80s. It’s almost as bad as the hairstyle.
No I’m kidding, of course it was.
LOL best comment.
So there AREN’T really 40ft tall transparent people in the church? No way! That happens all the time!
this was a trend in photography in the 70s and 80s it is not photo shopped on a computer but a “super cool” thing photographers did in the dark room. my parents have wedding photos like this.
Hahaha!!!!! First laugh of my day!
Yes, but that’s not the point, I think. The main factor is that a professional photographer would create a shot like this at all….
DUH! What is with eveyone and photoshop on this site? The point is someone thought this was a good idea somewhere along the way. This is beyond awkward into CREEPY!
yes it probably was, to be put in a frame or something to add a nicer effect rather than two seperate photos. this one just shows a good closeup of his hairstyle which is the awkwardly awful part of this wedding.
No. Just a bad 80s photographer and his/her idea of being creative.
80’s photography techniques was awesome!
Sarcasm, people, look it up! 🙂
I got that right away, it made me laugh. I think it is sad that you had to explain sarcasm lol.
Not Photoshop. I was a wedding photographer in the 80’s and used to do a very similar shot to this one. Ours was the couple looking down from the corner though, I took one every wedding. We did it as a double exposure in the camera through a matte box. First, you drop a glass sheet with the one corner masked out to shoot the ceremony and then afterwards you use a mask with the corner cutout to shoot the couple looking down on themselves double exposed over the first shot. You had one chance to get it right, it was a hit or a miss. I must have shot about 300 of these for the studio.
I know it looks dated and corny, but back then our customers loved them. When I started doing weddings on my own, i stopped doing them and concentrated on straight shots.
I’m thinking that the people who are not getting this are new to this site. Welcome people. You’ll learn soon enough.
A memorial for now and evermore of the worse fad hairstyle for men ever. Long may it stay just a memory.
If only that were the case! I saw 2 different men rockin the mullet on two different days last week.
Diggin ‘the mullet
This is what a Sim must feel like.
Great comment! LOL!
LOL, I am glad someone knows what I am talking about. 🙂
A classic case of, “Well, guess I’ll have to mullet over…”
email (will not be published) (required)