Couple Unhappy with their Engagement Pictures!!!

[jon_krasner]

Hi Everyone,

 

I have a client that is unhappy with the engagement portraits I took of them recently. They met with me to

review the proofs I sent them to point out what they disliked. Specifically, they thought the pictures were

too crisp and didn't flatter them!!! The mentioned that you could see all of their imperfections (wrinkles,

etc.) The couple showed me some poor quality shots taken of them by friends/family to show how they

looked better in those shots!! Nonetheless, I told them I appreciated their honesty and would be more

conscious on their wedding day of this and make an effort to shoot more film since it is more flattering. I

am writing to get others opinions on this situation. Has this happened to you? Do you think digital can

sometimes make facial details too crisp? I know I can soften this in post-production, but I don't want to

have to do this...Anyway, any advice or experiences you have to tell would be appreciated!!! Thanks.

[Matt Laur]

In the time it took you to have that meeting, you could have post-tweaked a dozen images to show them what's possible with the images they ultimately choose. That's more work, but so is going to film... especially since (one hopes!) you're not going to be using a film system so lossy that important detail is missing. An image missing crow's feet as it's shot is also going to be missing nice hair texture, eye detail, dress detail, etc.

[jon_krasner]

I had no idea I was meeting my client to discuss their disatisfaction with the photos.

Otherwise, I would have prepared myself! I shoot with the nikon d2x and f100 series. The

quality is there...I sometimes think film can be more forgiving.

[john_h.1]

"a film system so lossy"

 

Lossy is a digital phenomenon, not a film attribute.

 

Negatives and positives might get scratched, get coffee spilled on them or fade in many years but exist as material objects, not digital constructs which can be reconstructed mathematically where data loss can occur.

[Matt Laur]

John: "Lossy," in this case, as in "loss of detail." As in, not recording wrinkles. If the film itself is forgiving in some sense that, without any post-production, it isn't showing skin textures and blemishes, then - as used in that way - it's going to be missing other details too. The film can't know that you want to hide facial wrinkles while still showing lace dress details, for example. Either the details aren't recorded (in which case NO details of that scale or contrast are recorded) by the system and/or the film in it... or they are, and you're still looking at post-work in order to achieve what the B&G want... and then, you could be doing the same with the output from that D2X without having the film/scanning cycle in the first place. Of course it's a matter of taste, but since Jon indicated that he doesn't want to do PP to solve the problem, there has to be something about the film he expects to use that will achieve the softness... or, not.

 

And, Jon: I didn't mean to suggest that you should have anticipated their gripe on the way in, only that since you were willing to invest the time in the meeting, go ahead and invest that same time again in showing them (though a little PP work) that their fears aren't necessarily grounded.

[fotografz]

Detail and texture have little to do with which media is used and more to do with lighting

and/or processing techniques. It probably isn't the detail that causes the problem, but

perhaps the contrast.

[john_h.1]

>>>Lossy," in this case, as in "loss of detail." As in, not recording wrinkles.<<<

 

Poor film recording in the first place? OK.

 

"The film can't know that you want to hide facial wrinkles while still showing lace dress details"

 

Neither can the sensor.

 

Film and digital can be real sharp or softened up with a filter or even with a crappy lens. You are right. Either there is poor recording of detail globally or post production. Post processing is the way to go. As you report, You can't make detail out of poor film recording. To control the image, sharply recorded film would have to be scanned and then softened as desired. Digital would make the process much easier. The latter post processing is my reccomendation.

[Jerry_]

Here is a suggestion: find a couple of Tiffen Soft/FX filters. Put one filter on one lens for the wedding and use it once in a while: that way you will have a variety to show after the wedding. [it would not hurt to shoot a few images of the engagement session again...then you could show the softer side of your skill.]

 

 

 

 

Great glass is ruthless.

[annealmasy]

Are YOU happy with the e-pics you shot? Are they representative of your style?

[mark_parker2]

I had a very similar experience a few months ago. After shooting nearly 100 shots (after culls) of what I thought was a VERY successful outdoor e-shoot, the couple called and said that they didn't like them. Their biggest complaint, there was nothing formal enough for the newspaper announcement. I brought them back into the studio, rolled out the Wal-mart style backdrop, set up the studio lights and took a couple of shots. The couple was happy.

 

Funny thing is, hey bought nearly $150 of the photos that the said they didn't like and sent me a referral the next week. I think what happened was that "Mama" was paying for the pictures and "Mama" didn't like the romantic stuff we did. ol' fogey!!

[steve_levine]

So let us see the pictures in question? Have you been to school for photographic portraiture?

[gene_b]

Can you post a couple of samples of the "unflattering" pictures? I am curious what the problem is that makes you think film will help you in any way. Photoshop is such a wonderful tool! I doubt it you could do a better job using film and retuching a negatine better than taking the same shot in digital format and doing a bit of after-capture magic in Photoshop.

[alec_myers]

take a tub of vaseline to smear on a filter.

 

A friend of mine works in the film industry as part of a camera team and they use a small piece of black nylon hose stretched and glued to the back of the lens (apparently this is standard practice in film) for a smoother look - has anyone tried anything like this?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Maybe you should shoot the wedding with a Lens Baby.

[elliot1]

Shoot the wedding with those $10 disposable cameras so they can get the kind of shots they are used to seeing.

[edrodgers]

"Have you been to school for photographic portraiture?"

 

Rather harsh, don't you think?

 

Not only harsh, I think it's a silly question. If I actually practiced what I learned in "the school for photographic portraiture", I think I would die of boredom.

 

But I think that film won't solve the issue here any better than digital. If they want selective soft focus, that's what they want. It's easier to do when you start with digital.

[dave_nelson___atlanta__ga]

A little bit of time in Photoshop would probably make these customers happy. I had a customer where I spent hours on one particular photo to remove smile wrinkles and chicken pox scars not even notice that I had done anything to the photo. Some people have a self image that is very different from reality.

 

A little bit of gaussian blur just around the flat areas of skin could be a quick solution.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Alec

 

I use the Tiffen Black Softnet filters, with very good results. They have discontinued them, but are now making a line of Black Soft/FX filters that work very well too.

 

Russ

[sjluke]

I never let people see what they REALLY look like to the camera. It's all about post processing. And they will never realize it, because they don't know they have all those imperfections. They will just say, "Hey, thanks for the nice pictures."<div></div>

[stephen dohring]

"I know I can soften this in post-production, but I don't want to have to do this..."

 

I think this is something that is going to have to be done to make clients rave, and keep up with competition If they don't realize the touch ups they will at least think "He made us look so good etc." In an engagement session I would pick the best 5 or 8 shots they are likely to use and edit them. Once you know what your doing in PS everything gets faster and easier. It would take me seconds to use the healing brush or under a minute to run and tweak a Kubota Action for heavy softening.

[picturesque]

Other than the fact that many people oversharpen digital images, there is no difference between film and digital re capturing detail. When people complain about imperfections, and they show you examples of images of themselves they like, you should look at those images carefully to determine why they like them. Sometimes it is a matter of size of enlargement (a 4x6 sample, for instance), or the size of their face in the sample is small, or the image is out of focus, or low quality lenses were used--all of these suppress detail. Sometimes it's the lighting--I notice women especially tend to like frontal lighting similar to the classic butterfly lighting pattern, which emphasizes the shape of the face and facial elements, with small imperfections such as wrinkles and eye bags filled in by the frontal light (this is why they may prefer direct flash shots). If this is the case, they don't like cross lighting patterns such as short lighting, which will show wrinkles, etc. more easily, and create shadows. Bounced lighting tends to show those eye bags. Also, women tend to like straight on shots of their faces, contrary to what photographers are taught to do, which is to turn the face to a 3/4 angle. Again, a straight on view tends to show the shape of the face and emphasize eyes, etc. If this is the case, you can take steps to reduce shadows by controlling the lighting when you can on the wedding day.

 

If lighting is not the problem, and they are reacting to wrinkles, etc., you can do the softening in post production or use a soft focus filter during the shoot, perhaps in addition to trying to achieve lighting that helps fill from the front--in any case, just using film with good quality lenses isn't going to diminish wrinkles. I believe Mary Ball, our moderator, uses a low power softening filter over the lens for almost all, if not all, of the images she shoots. If you're shooting digital, I'd shoot it without the filter and do the softening in post production--either a low power softener globally, or just some of the images.

[jon_krasner]

Thanks for all the responses. I can't show you the pictures because I don't want them to

ever find out about this post. However, the pictures that they were unhappy with were the

close-up ones I did for their wedding announcement. I used mostly natural light outside

with a slight fill for their eyes. You can see small crow's feets around their eyes in these

shots, and I probably should have put a blur in PS instead of sharpening, which is what I

did. I might test these filters people are mentioning. My style is definitely more natural,

but perhaps a little blur in camera or post might do the trick. I think in general the e-

photos, particularly the more candid ones, were beautiful. Very intimate and sweet. I know

in this business we deal with a lot of people who are not used to being photographed and

may be self-conscious of their appearances. I know on their wedding day, with

professional hair & make-up and a conscious effort on my part to soften their features

(without creating out of focus photos!), they will be very happy with their pictures. It's just

these occassional criticisms that are sometimes hard to take!!!

[bruce_rubenstein]

Photography is often more about illusion than illustration.

 

My wife needed a quick head shot for a magazine article. She wanted it shot in 5 minutes. We go to a room in the house that has white ceilings and walls. I use a flash with a bounce card for soft light. I take enough shots so she doesn't look like she has bamboo stuck under her finger nails. The best shoot looked like her. Here comment was, "That is the WORST picture of me that I've ever seen! Erase them all!"

 

She gets our 14 year old to shoot her with with his A70. She loved the soft, out of focus shot he got of her.

[steve_levine]

""""Have you been to school for photographic portraiture?"

 

Rather harsh, don't you think? """"

 

The man has clients complaining. I was curious if he has any training as a portrait shooter? Not many years ago, this would have been a reasonable question to ask.

[pete_s.]

I bet most people (especially women) compare themselves to what they see in movies and in ads...so no wonder they are disappointed when they see themselves as they really look.

 

Make up, camera angles, posing, lighting, post production is usually used for the same thing...better than life pictures.

 

Here's an article about tricks used to shoot some movie stars without post production (and makeup).

 

http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2007/05/look_ma_no_phot.html