Gail & Mike's Wedding: Advice on Post-Production

[denarosko]

Hello p'netters!

 

I'm happy to share a wedding I covered recently:

-Go to http://www.denaphoto.com/wedding_album.html

-Click on Gail and Mike

 

Special thanks to Anne and other p'netters who critiqued my open house and other

wedding images this year. I followed your advise Anne and purchased a wide

angle - Nikon's 28mm f2.8 - and I shot this entire wedding with this lens. I

think my other lenses may get lonely. Now I can more readily fill the frame

without shaving off people's shoulders and foreheads as sometimes happened with

my 50mm, cute and pert a lens that it is.

 

I also took your advise Anne to not get locked into the "zoom doom" with my zoom

lens. I didn't use it, and was so involved with the proceedings I felt as

though I were part of the wedding party. Oh well, the images turned out better

than when I had used my zoom only, and the bride and groom told me they thought

I did a great job with working with them. That made me happy.

 

So my reasons for posting a critique request:

 

1) I had challenge in post with reds/oranges, which I suspect is b/c I shoot in

JPEG and b/c the walls of the location were red and orange. I think I managed

it well enough, but I've heard that shooting in RAW solves this problem.

 

-->Any suggestions on improving my skin tones? Any thoughts on RAW?

 

2)I had another challenge with those happy guests who love to take snapshots.

Once during the ceremony I was hunkered down trying to be below the radar so as

not to disrupt, and a guest saw me move, jumped up from her seat, and stood in

the middle of the floor in front of everyone to take a shot... And when I was

doing the formals, the group did not know whether to look at her or me, so some

of the formals people are looking in different directions... And lastly the

kicker was when she loudly exclaimed, "Uh! You ruined my picture!" after I had

dismissed the group when I was done posing them and capturing the image.

 

-->Any suggestions on how to positively influence the proceedings by kindly

redirecting shutter happy guests (remembering that I probably was one in my

amateur days! ha!)?

 

Thank you!

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Looks like you were in tight quarters and the wide angle came in handy, but for the tight portraits you could benefit from a longer lens.

 

Your second question about dealing with guests taking their "happy snaps", it's really up to you to take command of the situation during formals to get your shots. The trick is to do so in a fun way so it's an extension of the celebration and not a chore.

[conraderb]

Dena, if you are serious about this, you owe it to yourself to try raw.

 

you don't have to use it professionally, but you at least should try it. over and underexpose. shoot in a horrible white balance.

 

I used to shoot JPG until one day I shot raw. shooting raw made weddings actually fun again. I had to buy an extra thousand dollars worth of cards to do it, but it was completely worth it.

 

again, you don't have to use it forever, but try shooting in raw casually and see what it is capable of. if you have a canon, the canon DPP software should be included in the box, and it's a fine raw converter IMHO.

[picturesque]

1. Shooting RAW doesn't solve color casts or flash/tungsten/mixed lighting. It's just that with a RAW file, it is easier to correct the color cast. The skin tone issue may be connected with color casts and ease of correcting. I'd try RAW and see what you think. Lightroom is also a great place to start, although DPP is also fine to start with.

 

2. I'd do some searches on this issue. Lots of previous posts about this. Basically, you want to be a nice guy, not the police. So be nice, but firm. Use humor, and give guests a chance to take their own shots, but use your authority as the pro when necessary.

[picturesque]

Forgot to say that when shooting in mixed light, you may want to investigate gelling your flash.

[christopher hartt dallas]

Wow, you have some seriously funky and borderline ghoulish looking skin tones. I don't think jpg, RAW or red/orange walls are the issue here. Those are pictures a camera doesn't capture if you're shooting in a "neutral" mode (no picture styles, etc).

 

It looks to me like you used a "canned" action in PS or possibly Lightroom that boosted red values and orange was included because the values clipped. The eyes are quite dark and colors shifted which can happen if you try to add "punch" to a poorly exposed image.

 

If you're a consistent photographer - and for post production of wedding images, you MUST be consistent with the images you shoot unless you plan to Photoshop each one into compliance - you can devise a post production "recipe" for correcting the flaws in your images, ru a batch action and the result is a fairly consistent set of images. If you use somebody's "canned" actions, you have to shoot just they way they do for the actions to make your images look like their's. Which is why Kubota's actions or Boutwell or anybody else's action won't result in the kind of images they produce unless you shoot like them in the first place.

 

Another indicator of issues is with your b/w images. B/W is one way to back door color issues, but with B/W you still have to be concerned with black pt/wht pt, luminance consistency - especially with weddings and general exposure consistency. Your images have issues in all those areas, so again, that tells me that there were some exposure problems with your capture. Try reading a book like Bryan Peterson's "Exposure" and then a basic primer on flash. You shouldn't be shooting on Auto for consistent results. Also, until you master WB, just shoot a target - like an expodisc or similar - for each set you shoot and correct color, WB, and luminance (for B/W) with a few clicks of your mouse on the entire set.

 

The longest journey begins with the first step. Make sure you don't overlook the "first steps."

[david_mcmanus1]

Dena,

 

I think some of the comments above are a little harsh, especially the ones from Christopher Hartt who basically shoots a completely different style of photography to yours. Christopher, the tones she has in her images come about when indoor tungsten lighting is mixed with on-camera flash and/or when the the camera's white balance is not correctly set for each shot. It's very easy to get this cast on images when shooting indoors in limited spaces with colored walls (as Dena described) and most pros will deal with it by shooting in RAW and correcting later in lightroom - I don't for a second think she has some sort of 'picture mode' chosen on her camera. And in any case I wouldn't characterize practically any of her color exposures as 'ghoulish'.

 

When looking at Dena's gallery I was struck by the fact that people looked completely natural and at-ease despite the fact that she was obviously shooting at close quarters. This for me is a real achievement and is one that a lot of the supposed experts on this forum might try to emulate. I also don't think the exposures are technically terrible since she was mixing indoor tungsten lighting with on camera lighting. The images don't have that horrible 'flash' look to them and even though the images were shot in jpeg they can still be tweaked in lightroom to get stronger black and white points as well as remapping the contrast curve to bring better 'snap' to the images. (For the record Dena RAW will give you a LOT more leeway when making corrections like these and that's one of the reasons pros use it).

 

Christopher - the images on your website are technically great and you are obviously very accomplished but a lot of people these days do not want the highly posed (and frankly, highly airbrushed) style of photography which you seem to prefer. I'm not knocking you, but Dena is shooting in a more journalistic style which is completely valid. She probably has some technical issues to master but I would say the gallery she has posted will look very pleasing after it has been properly edited.

[christopher hartt dallas]

David, I understand what you're saying. I got my "hunch" about the pics after looking at the color histograms of several of the pictures. The color images are uniformly clipped which is possible only if the range has been shifted. If not in post production, then the shooter has a defective camera that exhibits uniform irregularities. I've never seen nor heard of that except for post production color shifts. As for the lighting, the multiple light sources would result in patterns of overlapping resonance shift - waves of repeating shift especially in whites where there are folds or contours. That isn't the case, it's an extremely uniform shift which again, is impossible from natural lighting because even if the sources were located right next to each other there would be a parallax shift evident in the white tones. There isn't. I started out as a photojournalist for a very respected publication. Photojournalism doesn't mean that one can overlook basic photo principles. And for that matter, the poster's question is about post production. Why does a photojournalist worry about post production? From what I've seen many times, it's about fixing the issues that insufficient knowledge of basic principles has produced. You might want to RIP a couple of the images yourself and check the color values yourself. Clipping comes only from post production shifts or JPG processing with a funky color style or program selected. The sensor is not responsible.

[hooman_b]

Hi Dena,

It might be easier if you just attach one of the pictures you have concerns about, along with the meta data on the shot. That way others can download it, and post up what they feel is a good development of the photo, along with the changes they made. Then just find one you like, and adjust / explore / compare their settings to your settings accordingly and there you have it.

 

Thoughts on RAW - a never ending debate,but personally, I love RAW. Takes more space, sure, but memory is cheap so who cares. RAW is cool because if you want, or if you need, you can make a ton more adjustments than just with a jpg file - either because of an error in exposure calculation, or, because you just want a different look.

[picturesque]

Dena--I hope you follow Hooman's suggestion and respond on this thread re what you did as far as in camera and post white balance. Even though Christopher's statements seem somewhat daunting, I think he is trying to help you, as are all who responded.

 

I also want to add, Anne's suggestion re the wide angle is a good one, but I do think for close-ups of people, you might want to avoid using wide angles from a low camera position, particularly with older brides and grooms. The distortion does not make them look like magazine models, as it might with younger folk.

[ajb2222]

"-->Any suggestions on how to positively influence the proceedings by kindly redirecting shutter happy guests (remembering that I probably was one in my amateur days! ha!)? "

 

I have been on both sides of this.

 

I have gone to freinds weddings as guests but taken my camera to get some shot's I always let the pro know that I wanted to get some shots "over his shoulder" so to say. We worked together and it worked out well. During the one reception I ran out of film and the pro let me use a few rolls of his.

 

One wedding I was the "Pro" (I say this loosly since I wasn't paid but reinbursed for the film and processing was done by a prefesional lab.) I found that it was really easy to get everbody set up and take the shot, then let the shutterbugs take a few before setting up the next shot. People have no problems waiting if you ask them nicely and let them know you are going to give them a chance to get a shot. After the first few they will get the Idea to wait until you take your shots and step asside. I also found that it makes the people in the photo more relaxed if you you explain how things are going to progress.

[denarosko]

Christopher: Though I appreciate your efforts to assist me in that I asked for help w/post I found your comments rude and unhelpful. I do not understand why you come across so harshly . I consider post _part of_ the finished product and not a band aid to cover up on location deficiencies as you inferred. I do not use actions, but color correct by hand with each image. Posting a paragraph of tech-talk shows your knowledge, but does not communicate to me specifically what I need to do to improve my work - _which is why I posted in the first place_. I care about the quality of my work and do not wish to make my subjects "ghouls" LOL. No need to lam bast me! Good grief! If I'm reading you wrong, then I will be glad because that will mean you didn't mean to be rude and we can be friends. ;)

 

[Ok I'm calming down now, no hard feelings]

 

David: I appreciate your kind words and efforts to define my style. I think you track with my vision for my work, and I appreciate that.

 

Nadine, Alan, and Hooman: Thank you for your tips and for speaking peer-to-peer.

[denarosko]

David Schilling & Conrad: Thank you, also for your helpful posts! Your advice will really help me out on site.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

One other quick suggestion if I may. When you post you might benefit from asking a shorter, more pointed/specific question. Also, you might want to avoid a question which directly or indirectly asks about the advantages of shooting RAW.

[tambria_beaty]

I looked at your images and you have a wonderful photojournalistic style. Some things that would help with your post production editing would be:

1. Shoot in Raw, as this gives you better control in the editing process. However you will need more cards.

2. Try using the Expodisc. It gives amazing results.

3. You could also try using the Gary Fong Light Sphere with the Tungsten dome. You set your white balance, on your camera, to tungsten, which gives too much blue, but the tungsten dome corrects this. Also excellent results.

4. A little more expensive, but a good investment is Nik Color Effects. There are filters that correct the tungsten problem.

 

Gary Fongs is the least expensive of the three. Hope this helps.

 

Tambria

[markonestudios]

Dena

<p>One of the wonderful things about this forum is the variety and diversity of advice that one gets. I feel I must come to Mr Hartt's defence here. I have carefully read his posts, and although some may read it as being harsh, I honestly don't think he's trying to put you down but rather give his candid assessment of your work. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him as "rude and unhelpful." On the contrary, you can infer some useful advice from the points he raises. For instance, instead of correcting each image individually, you may consider doing batch processing.

<p>I too used to do one-by-one corrections, but now I use batch actions that I've customised to suit my taste/style. One of the easiest ways to do this is to shoot manual and 'bracket' on the day itself. Allow me to explain: Say you're doing the getting ready shots. Take a few test shots to get the metering, white balance, etc. right. Carry on shooting with those settings, adjusting for DOF to suit. In the church, do the same. At the reception, perhaps the lighting is tungsten. So again take a few test shots, tweak your WB once again and shoot. When you're processing them, you can then create actions to deal with post-processing of the three lighting scenarios suggested above. I believe that's what Christopher meant by saying:

<br>"you can devise a post production "recipe" for correcting the flaws in your images, ru(n) a batch action and the result is a fairly consistent set of images."

<p>Regarding 'Uncle xx' getting in your way, I've found that firmly but politely asking the person to step aside just till you get the shot you need helps a lot. It will also be a great help to get the best-man/groomsmen or the master of ceremony on your side, so they can help you keep the mob of would-be-paparazzi at bay ;) You have a job you're being paid to do and sometimes you can't avoid stepping on a few toes to get it done :)

[david_mcmanus1]

Put simply, for photographers who are aiming to be as inobtrusive as possible and shoot as candidly as possible without getting in people's faces, without making them pose and look over here or move them around to get into the best possible lighting position, etc., you often have to shoot as best you can in VERY difficult exposure situations, hoping to do the maximum possible in post-production to get the best photographic image from the candid moment you captured. This means shooting in RAW and correcting each image individually in Lightroom and Photoshop.

 

This is not in any way an excuse for bad technical technique, it is an excuse for the fact that a wedding is not a photoshoot, our job it not to make people feel like it is a photoshoot, our job is to record the event so that we get the best images possible while still allowing people to relax and enjoy themselves.

 

 

I've been using photoshop since about 1992 and have taught it at college level for over 10 years. Actions and similar batch techniques in Lightroom are great time-savers in certain situations but are no substitute for individual editing of images in post production.

 

Also, Christopher, what exactly did you mean when you suggested that a someone shooting in a "photojournalist" style should not be interested in post-production? Do you seriously think that shooting in a journalistic style means you should not correct your images in post? It certainly isn't true of any photojournalists I know.

[hooman_b]

Something else to keep in mind - there was a post on here, last year i think, really funny - i can't find it, but, the idea was that even if ansel adams himself posted his photos on here for critique, he would get the standard photo.net responses of things like "exposure if off" or whatever - its much funnier in the original post, but, you get the idea. lol

[denarosko]

Mark: I appreciate your contribution. I do agree that I took something beneficial from all pnet responses thus far in that I knew I had some refinements to make. However, in the interest of creating community of professionals, the way in which we say things can be more important than what we are actually saying. That is, if someone gives me advice it is helpful if it is respectful, specific, related, and accurate. It can still be helpful even if it is disrespectful, but that is the value I assign to it, and whatever camaraderie that could have been obtained is in jeopardy.

 

My interest is to network with colleagues who share my desire to treat others with respect, and I do not think that assigning negative labels to another's work, or making inferences about their character based on an image, are appropriate for here or anywhere. Of course these comments relate more to my post on relating to professional peers under Philosophy forum, so perhaps we should continue that discussion there. I do appreciate your comments and insights and will keep them in mind.

 

Christopher: Though your communication "style" did not work for me, I'm grateful I can find helpful advice now and avoid future faux paus. The most important thing is that my clients receive the best service and images I can provide them, and that they leave their wedding season with a happy sense that all went well, even -- especially -- the wedding photography. ;)

 

David: Once again I appreciate your kind words and advice. I have respect for your expertise and posts. Also I really appreciate you noticing the rapport I had with Gail and Mike. That was so important to me. The bride thanked me for the "great job" I did on their photography -- and even before they saw the pictures! That made me happy.

 

Hooman: Thank you for giving me a much needed laugh and perspective. It can be an intimidating and fear-driven industry, and for my part it is good to remember I do what I do not for other's varying opinion, but because I genuinely enjoy being with others and providing quality images of their life's special moments.

 

Tambria: Thank you for your kind compliments; it always encourages me to hear a positive word and I'm excited you all noted my style without my stating it as I want my work to speak for itself!

[dave404]

The whites and blacks are pretty neutral which can be observed in PS if you scan the images with one of the info values set to LAB mode the a and b are very small, 0 for perfect neutral. The skin has too much magenta and this can be fixed by curving. Convert to CMYK (Image Mode CMYK, preferably GCR light 80% black limit) and do curving by click dragging over the skin with the curve window up and M channel selected. Notice where the M in the skin tone lives on the curve and pull it down (or up depending on how you have it configured, get M down in the info pallette). Good [well lit] skin should have Cyan 1/5-1/3 of the M and the M value should be less than Y - watch out for makeup on the cheeks - use the throat, forehead, arms for references.

[denarosko]

David L.: Wow, thank you for your information, those are new things for me to learn. I'm glad to know what CMYK values well lit skin should have, that is incredibly helpful. Typically I've managed color using HSV values. Thank you.