Is low contrast the trend these days?

I'm wondering how clients are reacting to your work when you

purposely produce low contrast images as an overall shooting style

for weddings. Is it just me, or am I seeing a lot of low contrast

work from digital photographers and is this becoming the norm? What

happened to producing images that had some "pop" and vibrancy to

them? I visited a large bridal fair recently and a good number of

photographers were showing lower contrast images than what used to

be prevalent. Their images seem to lack a bit of life. It had

nothing to do with digital vs. film and everything to do with style

and preferences. By the way, I shoot 100% digital.

 

Do you think the fear of blowing highlights has forced some

photographers to stick with lower contrast images?

 

I'm 100% digital these days and I produce a lot of well lit, vibrant

images (vs. very low contrast images)... but I'm not dumb enough to

think that my style is what my clients actually want all the time.

I'm curious to hear what other pros are experiencing.

I need to clarify that I'm not talking about images with duotone desturation techniques, or pulling own colors. I'm talking about overall contrast.

 

For you film shooters, I guess the nearest equivalent I can offer is shooting Fuji NPH400 rated at 250 or 325, and processing it as 400. Rmemeber how those images popped a little more without getting contrasty? Then think about shooting NPH rated at 400 at 400 or underexposing by 1/2 stop. You'd get the softer, darker low contrast results. Big difference!

My personal feeling on the subject is that a good majority of digital shooters do not post process their images correctly. There's a lot more involved into getting nice images from digital than film. With film you do your thing and drop it off at the lab with instructions. With digital your in charge of the post process and I just don't think many people do it right. I've been learning post process techniques for the last year and am barely getting a handle on it and getting the images right.<div></div>

I think you have answered your own question.

 

I too have noticed the trend. One pro I used to work with who shoots exclusively digital really got in trouble one time with blown highlights. His work has changed as a result. The last time I looked it had started to look flat.

 

This is one reason I still shoot film and add digital to the mix for some of the images.

I don't know if low contrast is the trend, but its certainly becoming more prevalent due to digital shooting. I experienced it myself when I recently shot several receptions with a digital camera. I normally use an off-camera flash to light up backgrounds and give dimensionality to dance scenes (with film). When I used the same set up with digital, I ran into several problems. First, because I was using an ultra wide zoom (APS sensor, so need ultra wide zooms), I had several frames where the off-camera flash flared into the picture, even being careful not to get the off-camera flash in the frame. Secondly, you increase your chances of burned highlights if you shoot a little too close to the off-camera light or if you have a small area and subjects are moving around. If you have the room to set the light way back, it's OK, but if not...

 

And, last time I was at a wedding location where it is desirable and expected to photograph family groups outside in front of the temple, backlit by the direct sun (which I was doing using film in my Hasselblad), another pro photographer using a digital camera (and no flash mounted) made his clients pose for family groups in the shade on one side of the temple, where the background was the white wall and a tree. I assume he didn't want to risk burned highlights. I know the people are important, not the background, but in this case, the temple is very important, as many people travel great distances just to be married there, so having the temple in the background is usually a must--the people I photograph there tell me so.

 

I don't particularly care for those digital, formal shots at the altar where the lighting is primarily ambient light with a tiny burst of fill flash. The results look very muddy to me (you can never get the right color balance over the entire group), as well as being a little too soft since invariably there is some subject movement among subjects in the back rows not hit by the flash much. I shoot those formals on film with an off-camera flash, dragging the shutter, but the flash is the primary source of light for the exposure, and my back row subjects are also sharp and not off-color.

 

I know that you don't have to flatten out the light to get good exposures with digital or to avoid burned highlights. I guess many photographers think you do.

Another thing. I've also noticed a lot more blurred shots being offered as not only acceptable but "arty". Now I am not an old school prude when it comes to a technique used in the name of art, but I do think this aspect has been taken to the extremes in many cases. I remember seeing a portfolio of shots where the announcements into the reception were all severely motion blurred--on purpose. I've done my share of motion blur on purpose (especially dance shots) but this was way beyond that. This too, is not necessarily a film vs. digital thing, but I do think digital shooting has influenced it's popularity as well (the emphasis on low light shooting with digital).

I like "Pop" and so do my clients!

 

Edward, thanks for the samples!

Nadine - I can understand where you are coming from with the multiple flash usage for receptions. I've been fortunate enough to be able to make it work. Yes, I do get blown highlights from time to time, but I'm getting used to figuring out distance to power ratios and I can pretty much nail the flash power setting (I'm using Sunpak 555 units on light stands with PocketWizards). It helps in that I shoot RAW whenever possible. I'll have my portfolio up on photo.net soon, and those images will be available.

 

I was just over at a fellow photographers house this evening talking about the low contrast vs. vibrancy/pop discussion, and we took a look at his last all digital wedding together. He's a very good shooter, but I still couldn't agree with his feelings that he nailed the family formals - they just looked so lifeless even though there was great posing and everyone looked wonderful. That is UNTIL we got to the digital reception shots with one or two off camera flash units popping on low/medium output. The images looked very vibrant and eye catching. The only question I asked was, "Why didn't you do that for the formals?" He shoots RAW as well and can easily pull up the formals and work the images, but it was a huge intital difference.

I am not a pro, but an observer of photography all the same.

 

The concern regarding highlights exposure is justified. Digital is like shooting chromes. "Expose for the highlights and let the shadows take care of themselves." It was always easier to get a good print from a color negative than a chrome. That concern can lead to over caution, especially if there is no money in taking care of contrast and other issues in the prints. I wonder what the pro labs who do wedding prints say(Other than that a number of newly-digital photographers don't use them anymore)?

 

 

After billions of high-contrast photos from the one-hour labs, perhaps the pendulum of novelty is swinging to low contrast as a reaction. Maybe low contrast means "professional" now.

 

I do read of more weddings shot photojournalist-style. Forget the formals, forget the cake cutting, etc. I believe digital could contribute to the PJ style because there is no film expense. Make money on the time, not on the prints. Give the clients 1,500 electronic shots on CDs or a DVD. Print the ones they want, one or a thousand.

 

As an aside, the few photojournalists I have known did not shoot machine-gun style with film. Too expensive. They were expected to recognize or create good shots, get them, and go to the next assignment,

 

My knowledge of wedding photography styles is not based on personal experience, except what I see in the prints from weddings of friends, and read of the style and pricing issues raised on various photo forums.

 

Call it Left-Sided Histogram Wedding Photography and thanks for indulging me these observations.

 

Bill