how does he do it?

<p>I'm willing to bet that it's post processing. He probably created an action (or bought one) and then adjusts accordingly. </p>

<p>This is a very popular look to wedding photos these days, and though many well-paid photographers use this sort of action, I find that I can't - unless it's just a treated photo that I provide in addition to the original. I find it really really hard to wash out detail. </p>

<p>I'm not saying I don't like it. I'm saying that I wouldn't use it for an entire wedding as it seems that he does. As cool as it looks today -- it's 2020's diffuse glow.</p>

<p>There is just something about looking at all those washed out type pics that makes my eyes hurt. Not my particular cup of tea!</p>

<p>Also - perhaps just ask him? Locate his contact info on his website. Let him know how much you admire his work, that you're not from his local area, but would love to introduce his style in your area. Flattery can go a long way!</p>

<p>Just another PS action freak. Look at the white wedding gown, there's no details at all everything highlight is blown to pieces. It's all but cheap trick to me because you can forget about getting the correct exposure. Not my style but what do I know, people seem to like it because it looks so different from point and shoot pics.</p>

<p>Will they like it in ten years? That's the question.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider that is we are looking at small blog photos, so the blown out highlight might look cute. But if you print out a 8X10 and the highlight is all blown out, I'm not sure how it would look.</p>

<p>This kind of look is really popular right now and it makes financial sense because I bet the PP is much faster with actions and you don't have to worry about holding the white on the dress when shooting. </p>

<p>I'm actually thinking about adopting this kind of style even thought I don't like it to attract customers.</p>

<p>Another example is from this photog: <strong>http://tinyurl.com/5uppx45</strong></p>

 

<p>After an ACR preset that I developed...</p><div></div>

<p>Next, a "levels" and a "glamor glow" tweak in PS.</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

<p>If you have Photoshop you can get this effect by following this path.<br>

Click Image>Adjustments>Exposure: then + exposure slider, + offset slider,<br>

and then increase gamma slider (move to the left) and you will have that<br>

effect. <br>

For Elements try this path. Click Enhance>Adjust lighting>Shadows/highlights:<br>

increase shadows slider, decrease midtone slider. Click Enhance>Brightness/contrast:<br>

and increase brightness slider. Click Enhance>Adjust color>Adjust hue/saturation: and<br>

decrease saturation slider then increase lightness slider. <br>

See if any of this gets you where you want to be. Good luck. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh, and if you want to moderate the strength of the effects that I posted a moment ago (eg, to make them look more like the effects illustrated in the very 1st link in this thread (to Stephen Michael photography), you have two choices. </p>

<p>The first possibility is to back on the strength of each of the individual sliders in the ACR preset, and back off on the two subsequent layers in PS. To me, this is much more work than necessary, and dramatically increases the possibility for shot to shot inconsistency.</p>

<p>Instead, I suggest you separately process the starting image to a nice, standard, sharp, no effects look, and then blend that back into the heavily processed version.</p>

<p>To illustrate this, attached to this post is what I used for my "no efx look".</p>

<div></div>

<p>... and then blended 50-50 with the full-effects version I posted a half-hour or so ago.</p>

<p>It's not exactly the same look as the Stephen Michael look, but it's moving in the right direction. Decrease the mid- and dark-tones brightness and it's even closer.</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

<p>I would sometimes overexpose just a little if I want to create an airy look to the images: www.ryanmontgomerysblog.com<br>

For me it's a case of a very slight over exposure and then drawing the highlights back.</p>

<p>Personally I'm not keen on the word "overexposure" here. It's really <em>correct</em> exposure - for the effect that the photographer intended. To me, overexposure implies some kind of brighter exposure than it ought to be, or a kind of technical mistake. Here the photographer is demonstrating excellent technical control and exposing precisely to get the effect that he wants.</p>

<p>Yes, it's brighter exposure than the camera meter's default settings if used in 'point and shoot' mode, but that doesn't mean it's overexposed, it just means that camera meters in point and shoot mode have their limitations.</p>

<p>Whether or not the look will become dated or not is another matter. Probably it will. In fact, I think <em>all </em>looks become dated at some point or other, then probably come back into fashion some decades later. Look at flared trousers from the 60's. I just hope that the Schindler doesn't come back any time soon (selective colouring in b&w photos).</p>

<p>Whether ones likes the look or not is yet another matter. To me, it is a bit over cooked, taken to a bit of an extreme, but I do on the whole like it. If it were my wedding I might like it cooked a bit less. But I prefer photography that commits itself in some way, with a look or feel, to something that is bland and uncooked.</p>

 

<p>@ Simon -- I checked your website. You do beautiful, stunning work. I see that you use this technique on some of your photos. While I agree that to get the effect to look good (as you do), you need to intentionally set your camera for an intentional exposure. However, much of the time, these actions are being used by photographers who have no clue how to use a camera, and it "saves" them for admitting they blew out the dress, or cake, or whatever. I can see using it on a portion of the photos....but not nearly all. I believe it is possible to have a style that is invigorating that does not include an effect that monopilizes the photos that you present to the bride and groom. </p>

<p>That said, I mean no disrespect to you, as I find your work to be stunning. But I reiterate -- many photographers without your skill are using this effect on all their photos, and I feel that it's shortchanging the bride and groom. Clothing styles may be dated. Photographs are dated based on film changes over the years, but these actions (and actions in general) are being overused. Thus the influx of unskilled, trendy photographers who embrace photoshop as a piece of equipment that has more value than their camera because, really, you can trick out a point and shoot image, call it a style, and voila, you're pro.</p>

<p>Once again -- you're the exception to the rule. Your work is without a doubt, very well done and beautiful. <br>

</p>

<p>Thank you Maira, that is very kind of you to say so - my ears are burning and I'm blushing! I'm lucky to work with a talented wife who takes fantastic photos.</p>

<p>I agree, that actions are overused (in fact, I don't really like their use at all, and don't use any actions myself), and that this kind of technique is rarely if ever good when it's used to rescue a blown image.</p>

 

<p>@ Maria,<br>

There are so many 'facebook photographers' using nasty actions, it's amusing! I'd be interested to see if the sales of these action sets have grown much over the past year or so.</p>

<p>When I had to shoot a wedding at high noon last week under no shade, I have to resort to using these action to clip the white for a few pictures. Short of using a scrim which is out of the question for this wedding, I don't know what else to do.</p>

<p>Sad thing is, the clients actually raved about those type of overblown highlight shots.</p>

Green... I hear you... I still get requests for selective color. That's one effect I can't bring myself to do. I am also

guilty of using whatever means necessary to save a photo that is a moment worth saving. Yet I strive to nail it first

and effect it if I choose. Not always possible in my case. Its my goal though.

<p>Well, there is still nasty old fill flash. Everyone loves to hate it, but it works for most high contrast situations, and it need not be overused, which is usually the problem and reason people hate it.</p>

<p>I have the 580 EXii and there's only so much it can fill in high speed sync mode even at ISO 800.</p>

<p>The 580 EXii is quite a powerful flash - even in bright sunlight it should be good for fill flash with a subject up to about 5 meters away with a 35m lens, or about 8 or 9 metres zoomed for a telephoto (assuming your camera can sync at 1/250th sec).</p>

 

<p>Hi Simon, the problem is under mid day sun the shutter speed is almost always be faster than 1/250 even at ISO 100. So the flash goes into high speed sync mode that cuts it's power to a fraction of it's max output.</p>

<p>I dial up the ISO to the point that I don't need to reduce the aperture but ISO 400 (or sometimes ISO 800) is usaully the highest I can do to stay within my 1/8000 shutter speed limit under harsh sunlight. Any other ideas? Thanks.</p>

Hello Green, if you set ISO to 100, then on a bright day, with a shutter speed of 1/250th sec, you'll get f11. This is just

the old "sunny sixteen" rule, modified for a slightly faster shutter speed. It's a fairly universal rule, though if you're in

the desert - or a beach - with lots of reflective sand around, you might have to stop down a bit more.

 

At f11, with the flash on max power (guide number of 36m at 35mm zoom, guide number of 58m at 105mm zoom

setting), the flash should fill up to about the distances I mentioned.

 

I don't use Canon, so can't advise on how to turn off high speed sync, but I would have thought that, provided you

keep the shutter speed below the sync speed of the camera, high speed sync ought not to kick in.

 

You can help by keeping the ISO low - putting it up to ISO 800 will pretty much force the camera to use high speed

sync.

 

In fact, it may not matter too much if high speed sync does kick in since the reduced effective power of the flash may

be compensated for by the increase in ISO. But it's not a good idea to use a higher ISO anyway - you'll just get

reduced dynamic range, with noise and burnt out highlights.

<p>Hi Simon, oh, I always use f4 or f2.8 for weddings to get thin DOF. I'll try f11 next time, the increase DOF will just be the trade off then. Thanks.</p>

<p>To get the shallow DOF, you'll want the lowest ISO you can get. The f11 suggestion was just to keep within standard sync speed. If you want shallow DOF <strong>and</strong> fill flash, you'd need to use a wider aperture which means a faster shutter speed, which means high speed sync. If you use as low an ISO as possible, you should be able to use high speed sync to allow you to open up the aperture.</p>

<p>The loss of power on the flash because of high speed sync should be compensated for by the increase in effective power of the flash due to the increase in aperture, so your flash should still work for fill at more or less the same kinds of distances. Though that depends a bit on the technical parameters of the Canon high speed sync.</p>

 

<p>Sorry, in case it wasn't clear: use ISO 100. Then at f2.8, you will need a shutter speed around 1/4000th in bright sunlight. <em>If</em> your camera can do high speed sync at that speed, and <em>if</em> the high speed sync mode cuts the power of the flash by around five stops (I don't know if those are the technical parameters of Canon flash or not), then the flash should still have an effective range that I mentioned above. If I got all my maths right!</p>