less than good looking

[marten_holmes]

I have read with interest threads on posing larger brides to flatter their

figures, but what can one do with a less than good looking bride?

 

I was second shooter at the weekend for a bride that fitted both catagories and

I'm frankly glad that I'm not the one selecting the proofs!

 

(Just sitting wondering if the tone of this sounds insulting or flippant? It

really isn't meant to be so please don't take me to task. I'm sure there are

techniques to make folk look their absolute best.)

[genex]

I would say use a lot of the same techniques you would use for most anyone - finding the best attributes and bringing them out. Perhaps there's more use of higher angles looking down or movement and blur. Maybe they have great skin so you can do tight crops?

 

Hope that helps...

[picturesque]

Try the following book. A lot depends on the specific "faults" involved. To just say that someone was "less than good looking" is difficult to comment on.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Corrective-Lighting-Retouching-Portrait-Photographers/dp/158428157X/ref=sr_1_2/102-4083965-0672121?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182184255&sr=1-2

[stephen dohring]

Not insulting it is good to have techniques to make them look the best they can be. Keep in mind you won't make them beautiful but you can reduce the angles they look the worst in etc. They will think is the best pictures they ever took even if you might not put any in your portfolio. Many lower budget shooters get large or unattractive Brides as they hate having thier picture taken in the 1st place.

 

Get your standard stuff but try more moody distant shots showing surroundings. Black and White onversions could help also. If she has a big nose have her kiss nose out or do tight face shots with the groom hiding her nose. You could also do those tight face shots showing only an eye check (you know the kind) one or two.

 

Use the Veil accros her face. You could charge extra and use the liquify filter a little in PS a little ;)

[eric v]

This probably isn't exactly what you mean, but I saw a photo shoot recently of celebrities that used no makeup and no photoshop. The photographers used "tricks" to make the models look their best. They were basically concerned with wrinkles, lines, poor skin, etc. The basic idea was to overexpose and use 1.8 (or a smaller aperture, but purposefully miss the focus by a little bit) to soften things up. Backlighting when overexposing a portrait helped too.

 

As you begin shooting, feel free to ask the bride if she has a favorite side/angle. You would be surprised (or not) to find out that many women know exactly how and where they look the best. If they don't care, take a moment to study their face and find their best side for them. Profiles work for some, but are horrible for others.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

You might want to start on page 93 of Steve Sint's last book (2nd Ed.) to learn the basics of flatterring poses and study up on short lighting.

[ni_gentry]

Most people are aware of their looks, good or bad. As a photographer, you just have to make

sure you know all the basic tricks to shoot from good angles, lighting, posing, etc... Most of

all you have to capture good expressions.. You might not be able to make some people look

"gorgeous" (in today's pop-culture sense of the word), but you should be able to make them

look as good or better than they've looked in any other photo they've seen of themselves.

[Jerry_]

Just do the best job with lighting and posing that you can do. If you get good images, the bride will be happy. (The camera holder cannot improve on Mother Nature in every wedding.)

[marten_holmes]

Nadine thanks, have ordered a copy and look forward to reading. (Costs so much more here in UK!) I realised I wasn't being too specific, but that would have appeared rude. One problem was that she insisted on standing square on with head down which emphasised her size and double chin. As second shooter I didn't feel free to interfere too much with things, but have another wedding (my booking) coming up with a bride that will need to be helped to get good photos. So...

 

Steve - yeah, the shots that did work were exact that, distant and moody with veil down. Profile worked okay with this lady too. (Thanks too Eric.)

[picturesque]

To say that the best shots of this bride were distant ones with the veil down is like saying it is best for the aesthetics of the shot if we see as little as possible of her. I know you are being careful not to be rude, but while you can shoot a higher number of these shots, you are still going to have to show her where she is recognizable and her features are shown--it is, after all, one of the reasons a bride hires a wedding photographer. It is part of the documentary nature of wedding photography. So in those shots that really show her, one needs to know how to maximize her features.

[marten_holmes]

Nadine, you are of course quite right. Did I slip towards the flipant! I didn't have too much control as I said earlier - I did not put the veil down, but when in profile with the veil across part of the face she looked SO MUCH better and to take a higher proportion of shots like this would have been a good move.

 

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to contribute to this thread. Reading and thinking it through has been very good. I normally 'think with my mouth' so dialouging like this is a good second best for me.

 

If I can work out how, I'll post what I think is a pretty acceptable image. What do you think?<div></div>

[marten_holmes]

Okay, someone point me in direction on how to resize image for the site.

[apostrophe-studios]

<p>In follow-up to Eric Vichich's comment, here's the link he was talking about:</p>

 

<p><em>How People Magazine used all the camera tricks "in the book" (read: no help from

Photoshop) in <a

href="http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2007/05/look_ma_no_phot.html">How-To Make

Models Look Great Without Makeup</a>.</em></p>

[mreul]

i think it isn't for one to decide what looks good and what doesn't on a bride or anyone unless you are "casting" for a shoot. they hired you and if they ask then this information is great but please keep in mind if they didn't who are you to decide if an attibute is "less than" or that being "larger" is something they want to hide. and i'm trying not to be flipent either. seriously and i know i can be very much if i want. hence my other comments. anyway just a thought to keep in mind.

[mreul]

marten here ya go:

 

How do I include an image in a forum post?

There are two ways to include an image in a forum posting.

Using the bulletin board upload feature. With this method the association between the uploaded image and the posting is stored in the database, and the image is uploaded to a special area. The attached file will stay on photo.net as long as the posting is not deleted. To do this, you fill in the form that comes up after you "Confirm" your posting. If you enter a caption and the filename has an extension recognized as an image (.JPG or .GIF), it will be displayed at the top of the posting, and if it is small enough, it will be displayed in-line. If it is too big, there will just be a link. What is "too big"? 512 pixels or more in width. If you don't enter a caption, it is assumed to be some other kind of file besides an image (not allowed in all forums), and a link will be placed to it at the bottom of the posting, after the poster's name. Even with the correct extension, the software may not recognize some JPEG files. It has been reported that .JPG files from Picture Publisher 8 are not recognized as images, for example.

 

Make your posting HTML and include an <img> tag. Another popular way to do it is to make your posting HTML rather than "Plain Text" and to enter an <img> tag. For this to work, you have to have the image available somewhere on the Web to be served. An obvious way to meet this requirement is to upload the image as a "photo" to photo.net and to use the photo.net image-display URL, but any image hosting service or a URL to your own web server will do. This approach is more complicated than bulletin board attachments since you have to separately upload the file and you have to type in a little HTML. Its is that you have more control over the size and placement of the image. The disadvantage (besides being a little harder) is that if the link is ever broken (the image hosting server is down, for example), then the image in your posting won't appear. If you use this approach, please be polite to other forum readers, and do not embed very large images in your posts or use URL's that are going to place unwanted cookies on other members' computers.

[picturesque]

Marten, the image you upload must not be wider in pixels than 511, plus you need to put a caption on it or it won't show up directly.

 

I wasn't saying you were being flippant--I know you're trying to be courteous about this. My point was--you have to shoot shome images of her that show her in her gown that day--recognizable images that don't make it look like you were trying to hide her. She looks fine in your image. The veil around her shoulders and upper arms is good--also "cutting" into her face width. Most heavier girls don't like their profiles though--tummy and double chin problems.

 

As others have said, most women are well aware of how they look and how that compares to your handy gorgeous celebrity. If she chose to wear a strapless gown when she knows her arms are not slim, then you have to reason that she knows full well what she looks like that way. I have run into some brides that do have a completely delusional image of themselves, but that isn't usually the case. You do what you can under the circumstances (one does not have ultimate control at a wedding), and possibly in post processing, and let it go at that.

[jmarshall]

"Many lower budget shooters get large or unattractive Brides as they hate having thier picture taken in the 1st place"

 

Speaking solely from personal experience, I can tell you that as a bride who hated to have her picture taken (that's why I'm usually the one taking the pictures), who was (in my own opinion anyway) not especially attractive and wearing a size 26 wedding dress to boot, the LAST thing I wanted to do was hire a photographer in the "lower budget" range. I wanted to look as good as possible and frankly, I figured the best way to do that was to get someone who was a really good (and probably expensive) photographer. My instincts were correct: the photography ended up being the greatest expense in the end. But I don't regret a penny of what we spent on the photos because when I saw them I literally cried because I looked so good ... relatively speaking, of course ;)

 

Martin, my recollection of the photos shot on my wedding day is that I was typically directed by the photographer to tuck my chin down, as the bride at your wedding was doing. So if she wasn't being directed to do so by the lead photographer, she may have been acting on what she'd been told to do in the past. If it didn't look good, why didn't someone (that someone being the photographer heading up the photos)tell her to position her chin differently and stand at an angle to the camera? Very few people look good standing square to the camera!

[edsel_adams]

All brides are beautiful.

[savagesax]

i like that Edsel. A+ on that comment.

[fotografz]

Edsel beat me to the punch.

 

There is no such thing as an ugly bride. Only inexperienced photographers.

 

In my experience, it isn't the "less than attractive" women who are "less than comfortable"

in front of the camera. It's the beauties that are obsessed with their looks who are. Many

regular people accept who they are, and frankly are sometimes easier to photograph.

 

IMO, after lighting, the single most important thing is lens draw in concert with angle. So

called portrait focal lengths aren't always the best solution for a round face.

[david_prouty]

I guess I'm a little late. Edsel and Marc have hit it right on the ole bean.

 

Gerald, the camera holder CAN and SHOULD be able to improve on Mother Nature in EVERY wedding. That is how you seperate the PRO from the HACK! Maybe not on every shot, but certainly in every wedding on every bride.

 

My miserable $.02!

[marten_holmes]

"IMO, after lighting, the single most important thing is lens draw in concert with angle. So called portrait focal lengths aren't always the best solution for a round face."

 

Marc - could you explain that a little more. I understand long focal lengths flatten features and vice versa and am wondering which way you're suggesting for a round face.

 

One further general question - I guess we all PS out minor blemishes and spots but what about more pronounced features, say large facial moles or tattoos? Where do folk draw the line.

[marten_holmes]

Thanks for the link Ryan. Indeed a picture really is worth a thousand words.

[mreul]

i usually ps out really noticable blemishes - because usually its not something permanent...but permenant things like tats or birth marks - that's another thing because this is "part" of a person - so it goes back to "how does my client prefer to be portrayed" that's their call....once i had a young girl (17) (the brides young sis) was a "cutter" so she had things like "hate" and geeesh i can't remember carved all over her arm and scared in farily bold letters...well i left it because no one mentioned they would rather not have it there...and she obviously showed her arms at the wedding... i also think putting things back is strange too....one time on here someone asked if they should ps in a tooth on someone missing one - again unless they draw attention to something like that themselves i certainly wouldn't. and btw - when doing hs seniors - if i get a kid w/ "horrible" acne - i just don't have the heart to charge extra for ps'ing that...but hey that's me - i can't make money on somthing i know is so hard for most teens.

[mreul]

sorry the response above was answering this:

 

"One further general question - I guess we all PS out minor blemishes and spots but what about more pronounced features, say large facial moles or tattoos? Where do folk draw the line."