Is this to distracting

[elaine marie]

Bogdan<P> I tried something while second shooting at this wedding. Would not have taken the chance as the main shooter. I thought shooting through the tree limb pass the lights that the lights would show up like small twinkles but they turned out to be large orange blobs. No damage done ...lesson learned get back farther from the lights. Could I have moved in and framed differant ??? Yes, but I didnt and I was just asking if the shot was interesting or distracting? The general opinion was NOT interesting, so is it a tosser?..... Yes,with out PS it is, but Marc to the rescue with a beautiful crop and artful eye that he has and now it's a keeper. So yes, I will take the points you made to heart and try for a better shot next time. I am still learning to use my 70-200 and will make many more blunders I am sure, but until I get it right and zoom just right to blur the background and get rid of that pesty minister I will play and enjoy every PS technique I learn on this board.<P> Thank you to all that responded<P> Elaine

[rtrace]

Elaine,

 

I gathered you were trying to frame the picture with the branches and lights, but the reason they show up as large blobs is because you are shooting wide open at a large aperture and they are close to the lens. So the lights/spectral hightlights will take the shape of the aperture opening. The reason they look so good/nice shape, is because the lens is very good! Sometimes this effect is desired - not here obviously, but important to know how to use it if you DO want this effect. Quite common.

 

My reply was more in sort of amazement at some of the posts that followed. I guess I'm not into cloning things out using Photoshop for any picture just for kicks... That's just me.

 

"I am still learning to use my 70-200 and will make many more blunders I am sure, but until I get it right and zoom just right to blur the background and get rid of that pesty minister I will play and enjoy every PS technique I learn on this board."

 

That sounds fine, and may be for some, but for me I see it as a potential trap in that *while learning* you will know these PS tricks/techniques and will have them in the back of your mind as a safety net. Is that a bad thing? Not always (and not if you've mastered photographic techniques like Marc) - see my post above, but IMO nothing will replace an image done right in-camera. Cropping is one thing - cloning and other PS manipulations another (and I'm not talking about dodging/burning/etc.). Again, this may become a trap/safety net while learning if not careful. Learning photographic technique and being brutal in editing is a safer way to learn IMO than learning these PS things in the beginning and not tossing out any shot because every single one can somehow be fixed in PS and made to look like something else. Once the lens and photographic techniques are mastered, then IMO you will have a better eye as to what to do with PS. Again, just my opinion, but I see more and more of this all the time. Maybe times are changing, and I'm old school.

 

Bogdan

[fotografz]

Yes, Bogdan, there is no doubt that purism is the path to righteous photography, and that

one should strive for the Nirvana of in-viewfinder perfection. And I mean that. PS is not a

substitute for careful observation and positioning one's self for the best shot possible.

 

Then there is the real world, where the planets don't always line up according to plan ... or

you step off the path and experiment ... sometimes with partial success or partial failure ...

depending on your personal outlook.

 

My POV is that the glass is always half full and don't mind blacking my little heart with a

few minutes of PhotoShop work to see if I can fill the glass to the brim... which is no

different than what I use to do in the darkroom, only a lot easier. If I can't, there's always

the delete key : -)

 

IMO, the first kiss shot is one often likely to suffer from distractions when shot

photojournalistically... sometimes there just isn't a clear shot no matter what you do. To

avoid this one can minupulate the scene (pose the shot again later) to fix the conflicts, or

take the "real" first kiss and eliminate the distractions afterwards.

 

Elaine, consider approaching the officiant and politely asking if they wouldn't mind

stepping aside as he/she tells the couple they can kiss ... like we did for this shot.<div></div>

[neil cowley - visual artis]

It would be cool if there were more of them!

[picturesque]

I guess I am more of the purist described by Bogdan. My first reaction to the image is that it is a photo taken during the ceremony itself so the fact that you see the minister and the best man (or whomever) is fine. Of course, if you look at the image critically from an artistic viewpoint, they are distracting, but my point is--why look at it that way, if it was a truly journalistic image taken without posing or other control? I would just deal with the orange blobs and leave it alone otherwise. I would also probably have done a kiss shot as part of the "romantic session" later with just the couple, where I could control the situation, or if I wanted the "altar" background, re-staged it after the ceremony. Of course, being a second shooter, Elaine didn't have this control. The fact that Marc has so skillfully pulled this image into the realm of the artisitic is wonderful, and if one can, why not? I personally would have left it alone, or maybe offered it two ways, if you particularly liked the bride's expression. Also, I actually don't mind the orange blobs on the left, but I would have taken out the white-ish fade out in the lower right corner.