sun glare: artistic or annoying?

[steve_gibbs1]

I have a series of PJ-style shots of B&G exiting building. I stepped out of the shade

for a second (I knew it would glare)), but I took another shot anyway. I am

contemplating on including this image with their proofs even with the glare accross

the grooms face because I appreciate photographic differentiations, but I dont know

if others just see it as a "flaw". Opinions?<div></div>

[andy m.]

If the glare didn't obscure the groom's face, I think it would be okay,. As it is, I think the B+G's opinion is all that really matters, so do include it with the proofs.

[eric merrill]

I think it's a business decision you need to make about what leaves your studio.

 

If you really didn't think there was a problem, you most likely wouldn't be asking here.

 

I see a flawed picture. If it were mine, the bride and groom wouldn't see it.

 

I have seen flare used for aesthetic reasons. This is not one of those.

[timcorridan]

its flawed. don't put it in the proofs unless your light on your count

[al_kaplan1]

There are also likely people out there who weould look at it as heavenly light coming down on the head of the groom, confirming the bride's choice of a husband, putting a blessing on the marriage. But that's theology, not photography. Leave it. Show it to them. They might order a 16x20, or use it on their thank you cards.

[anndee]

I definitely would NOT use it. It is a flaw, not a feature and would detract from your professionalism.

 

If the flare were elsewhere - and not in the grooms face - you might have an argument to leave it in. But even then, I sure would not.

 

You need to be careful when composing that the light doesn't flare like that. Sometimes you really can't help it. A lens hood would help. Not using inexpensive filters would also help.

[cc_ss]

I don't see a "flaw". I see a shot outside in the sun.

 

There's only two people whose opinions really count. I don't think they or anyone else is going to criticize your work based on one picture out of 200.

 

I think photographers are too critical of not only their work but others as well. The customer however sees great prints. Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder!

 

Show it or don't show. It's your call. But you'll never know if they like it unless you show it too them.

[belledeux diana]

In this portrait by John Singer Sargent, the older daughter is barely visible. It's not a flaw. The painting is a masterpiece.

<P>

So look at the photograph, and whether or not you see the eyes, nose, and ears of everyone, does not a portrait make. Etcetera.

<P>: )<div></div>

[grinder]

I would have to say if I did not know you did it on purpose that it wa simply a bad photo. If some friends showed it to me and said our photographer made this neat flare I would say yeah right he/she just took a bad pic and made that story up. As said above it will be your name out and about associated with that picture. If you like it go for it but IMO it is not good.

[todd frederick]

I no longer know what is a "good" or a "bad" photo! I hate crossprocessing as well as tilted images. But, others love them.

 

I try not to exclude any potentially "good" photo from the proofs.

 

My clients always surprise me. They seem to choose the photos I think are the worst!

 

That happened recently with some engagement photos.

 

Steve, the photo you posted has a somewhat etherial feel to it. It's not what I like, but the couple may love it. Who knows.

 

Cover yourself, and just tell them that you are "playing around" with some new "artistic" techniques! (^U^)

[john falkenstine]

I consider it a flaw. I know what folks like to see in their images and this is not one of them, regardless of the rationalizing. But, If you feel this is cool, by all means give it to the customer. My experience with images of this type is that more than likely the customer will not come back for seconds...

[david_schilling___chicago_]

OK....I guess I'm the only one asking: where is the fill flash? How did your other shots turn out?

[kay_thorogood1]

I was an assistant/second shooter for a friend. We split up at the reception to shoot different scenarios. The reception was located in the backyard/garden of a very expensive home. There was a fireplace in the cabana that was open to the cabana and the garden. I shot from the cabana threw the fireplace to the garden/reception area. When my friend and I reviewed the photos, we both agreed the "fireplace" concept was good but technically it was off. We dismissed it immediately. Later, my friend told me that both the groom, bride and mother-of-the bride LOVED the shot. We both groaned. It didn't end up in the final album, but this situation made it crystal clear to both of us that if you don't think something is technically correct AND you don't like it, don't show it to the client. However, if you like your flare shot, technically right or wrong, then show it to the client. It's your call.

[stephen hazelton]

I associate that kind of sun flare with walking-across-the-burning-desert shots- it just sort of looks out of place on that picture, though.

[derek_c.]

It's OK, & cute to have a shot like that.<br>

I would never intentionally shoot that one myself though.

[kari douma]

"but this situation made it crystal clear to both of us that if you don't think something is technically correct AND you don't like it, don't show it to the client. However, if you like your flare shot, technically right or wrong, then show it to the client. It's your call."

 

The question I would pose is is this the type of work you want to represent you. I find that when I question a shot, I'm not sure if I want to give it it them, they always seem to pick that one! Then I groan and say, "I should have never given that one to them!" I don't want them showing that image to someone and say "Kari Douma was my photographer" when I am not completely happy with the work. The only time that I don't go by this philosphy is when it is a must have shot, and it is the only one I have. (hopefully that isn't too often!)

[anner]

The bride & groom would rather have more to choose from. They don't care about things

that are technically imperfect- they only care about having every single moment captured.

Leave it and let them decide- don't let other photographers decide for them.

[lukas_kisiel]

If it was a must-have shot I would try adding more flare in bottom left quadrant, along the flare axis coming from top right corner. It would require a second photo with a lot of flare on some opaque background and then some Photoshop time. Probably not worth it in this case. It depends what's your style. I shoot photojournalistic style and I would show it to B&G. Nobody will think you're a bad photographer just because of occasional photo like this.

[grinder]

Anne, I enjoy your photos and think you are a very accomplished photog and I understand letting the B&G have a large selection but I would not just show everything if I had alot of techniclly imperfect shots. It will just set in there mind that uncle bob or cousin joe could have done this for free if he had just used burst mode on his DSLR and went through lots of memory/film. (We all know that a large portion of the population think this) I think it is hard for a photographer (at least for me) to think about it from there stand point because I do know what flare is.

 

Steve, If it is only the once in a while imperfect shot sure show it to them but if it is say 1 in 5 no way. I also think it does fit into a PJ stlye which I think you do well and since that is what they hired you for it may be what they want. I like a more classic style but that is me not your client and I am not paying you so take it for what it is worth. I think if I did show it to them and they did not like it I would not let them have a copy of the proof.

 

btw, I shoot for fun not for money and feel I am a better printer than photographer but I try.

 

,Grinder

[steve_gibbs1]

Thanks to most of you! I do find it SAD that some people cant give an opinion without

needing to question irrelevant factors.

 

 

"OK....I guess I'm the only one asking: where is the fill flash?" Thanks for the

concern David, but the other shots are perfectly exposed. I was in the shadow of tree

branch. I prefer to keep some of the ambiance of a scene, so I wanted to capture

some of the backlighting. That is why I only posted THE ONE IN QUESTION. Attached

are the next 2 pics. Fill OK?

 

 

Ann DeCristofaro: there are no 'inexpensive' filters on my Nikon glass. I use only a

B+W uv for physical protection and because of our elevation. And I use a bellows

shade system, this shot is almost directly into the sun. Please look at the shadows.

 

Thanks for the genuine answers, especially Todd's " I no longer know what is a "good"

or a "bad" photo!- I think that becomes a serious factor in deciding what other people

like and and the de-sensitizing that occurs when I look at hundreds of brides all day.

That is exactly why I post questions like this.<div></div>

[anndee]

I'm sorry if I didn't have a "genuine" answer for you. But you know, whether or not you had a cheap filter on your particular lens, cheap filters CAN accentuate flare. I have no idea of your technical expertise - and was trying to be helpful. A lot of people don't use lens hoods (how was I to know whether you do or not???) That's another cause. Did you have a bad day today that you have to diss the people who are trying to help? Grow up.

[picturesque]

Most people would see it as a flaw but then some don't, especially since that kind of sun glare is deliberately done in movies and on TV. So I would show it but not if it was the only one of that sequence you had. Seems like you had plenty of other "unflawed" ones so I'd include it. They might like it.

[anner]

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/31/51392140_0ee03f7232.jpg"><br>

... it all depends in how comfortable or confident you are in showing them. The groom is

not very visible in this technical folley, but what a cool effect! I included it. I see value in

images that aren't technically perfect if there's something fun about them. I agree that

your lot shouldn't be littered with things that look technically flawed, but there's also a

sense of artistry if you're comfortable showing images like these.

<br><br>

The following was a planned shutter drag- I usually include a few of these from the

reception to show motion and excitement. It can take even more skill (and wasted shots)

to intentionally nail an image like this...<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/28/51392288_30ef77f117.jpg">

[david_schilling___chicago_]

"OK....I guess I'm the only one asking: where is the fill flash?" Thanks for the concern David, but the other shots are perfectly exposed. I was in the shadow of tree branch. I prefer to keep some of the ambiance of a scene, so I wanted to capture some of the backlighting. That is why I only posted THE ONE IN QUESTION. Attached are the next 2 pics. Fill OK?

 

I'm happy you got the other two shots and they look nice. I'm also glad that they were "perfectly exposed". Sorry you got defensive, my point was, if I overlook the lens flare, the couple's faces are underexposed which creates an altogether different problem for the photo. Was anyone else concerned with this factor? Guess not, since nobody else made a note of it. So,for me, JMHO, this image has two problems/flaws, lens flare and underexposed-shadowed B/G,....my vote is to trash it.

[wedding-photography-denver]

I love it and I shoot for it purposefully on many an occasion...<div></div>