WEDDING CRITIQUE OF THE WEEK 714/09 - AKA WEDDING PHOTO OF THE WEEK

[mbbrown]

<p>Betty, I couldn't have said it any better.</p>

<p>I'm surprised by the number of people who have had issue with the "orangeness" but are seemingly okay with what has become the norm in wedding photography these days...the oversaturation, overexposure, high contrast, overprocessed (in some cases). Many of our images are taken to exaggerate the conditions of a moment. This isn't a new concept. I can't even begin to imagine the low percentage of images I take that can even come close to "what the eye sees." We're not doing crime scene photography here, people. Anyone who steps in to the arena of wedding photography has to elevate their senses to a new level and be prepared to recreate an emotion, not just document the occasion.</p>

<p>I've been invoved with professional photographer organizations since 1982 when I joined-up with a well-established photographer. I was 15. My Dad would drive me to weddings until I got my license. I've sat through print critiques, entered contests, talked to the masters. In college, I've spent 20 times as long in the darkroom as I had the studio on one shot. I know what it's like to agonize over the tech specs of a print. And I know the crushing blow of having a mentor destroy you in an open critique. And, arguably, these are good things to have happen for the young and just starting out.</p>

<p>But, 26 years later, I consider myself "well established." And my attention has shifted entirely from pleasing my peers to pleasing my clients. My clients know enough about me and my style to know what to expect. I represent myself well enough to be able to produce images like this without having to explain the meaning behind it to justify the deviation from the status quo.</p>

<p>Finally, I keep thinking, about this image in particular, if your eyes really are doing battle with the windows in the background, and you're not feeling the emotion of the image, you might be one of those photographers who are caught up in the jungle of technical mish-mash.</p>

<p>I could enter this in a competition and would probably hear the same things; too orange, to dark, windows too bright, etc...and, at the same time, my B&G loved this image, it will go in their album and they'll cherish that night for many years to come. Beyond the success of that, what is the point?</p>

<p>Is this a classic example of "can't see the forest for the trees?" Good wedding photography is not always proper exposure, accurate color balance, ideal conditions. But it is about being able to understand and use those things to successfully dance around them to capture what Uncle Bob can't.</p>

<p>Just my opinion...might not be well-received, but...well, there ya go.</p>

[betty_lowrey2]

<p>Well said Michael.<br>

I think there is a place for "technical mish-mash", as you call it, in...say...nature photography. But, I think a lot of photographers who would probably be better served in another photographic arena end up in weddings and events because it's where the money is....and they bring their technical obsession with them which, I believe in the long run, doesn't work out best for the client.<br>

As a well-established photographer in the field, I think you have the right outlook, Michael. It's one I hope to hold on to the longer I remain here. I chose to do weddings for the sociological and emotional aspect, the ability to capture a high-emotion day that leads to pictures like the one you took.</p>

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"I could enter this in a competition and would probably hear the same things; too orange, to dark, windows too bright, etc...and, at the same time, my B&G loved this image, it will go in their album and they'll cherish that night for many years to come. Beyond the success of that, what is the point?" </em><br>

<em></em><br>

Exactly, what's the point? If you truly care only about pleasing your clients and could care less what your peers think, then why would you submit the image for review/critique? If you recognize the technical issues with the image, then why not preface that from the beginning? A trained eye will view images differently. There is no reason that you can't have good technical execution and have a good eye for expression and the moment. In fact, that's exactly what separates the pros from the Uncle Bobs and Soccer moms. Perhaps people would be better served if we simply overlook technique altogether then everyone could post their "happy snaps" and feel all warm and fuzzy. Or perhaps, people might want to benefit from the voice of experience/training......I donno.</p>

[danzel_c]

<p><em>"too dark, too orange, window too bright, etc"</em><br />these are valid comments for a critique. doesn't mean it's a bad picture. i think the difference between a professional and an uncle bob is the fact that a professional has the eye to notice these things and correct them (via crop. white balance, curves, color balance, etc.) before the client ever sees the picture. if this was my picture i would include a few differnt versions of it in the proof book (my version above, plus b/w, plus the original). uncle bob probably doesn't have $1000 worth of software (photoshop and lightroom), and the ability or the knowledge to make a snap shot picture look professional. there are often times during a wedding where you don't have time to check/adjust the camera settings and you just grab and shoot because the moment is there one second and gone the next. you fix what you can and see if what's left is a usable picture. sometimes your lucky, sometimes not.</p>

[mbbrown]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Exactly, what's the point? If you truly care only about pleasing your clients and could care less what your peers think, then why would you submit the image for review/critique? -David S.<br /> </em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Because I'm not trying to please anyone on this forum, David. This is not a competition...says it right there at the top. This is a conversation. A review/critique is not an offering of right or wrong. There are no absolutes involved in things that are subjective. And I've considered what has been offered in this thread. But consideration is not synonymous with agreement. Are you able to recognize the difference between trying to please a client with an image, and simply presenting the same image for review to peers? Just because I haven't altered this image to "meet with everyone's approval" doesn't mean I don't value every opinion expressed. We don't have to agree. I looked at your website and it's clear you and I have very different styles. Doesn't make one of us right and one of us wrong; we just likely serve a different clientele. But there seems to be an insistence on your part that successful images be entirely technically correct, lest they be deemed successful. Just my opinion. Make no mistake, however; I value your participation in this thread.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Perhaps people would be better served if we simply overlook technique altogether then everyone could post their "happy snaps" and feel all warm and fuzzy. -David S.<br /> </em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not into the warm and fuzzy, huh? That's too bad. Would you like a hug?</p>

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I'm always up for a hug :-)</p>

<p>Feel free to critique my image and participate in the nearby thread regarding subtracting light. Take care.</p>

[mbbrown]

<p>((((((David))))))</p>

<p>That's a cyber-hug. :-)</p>

<p>I am looking at your image. Going to do some sleuthing and post a comment. I actually just shot a reception in a white tent, so it'll be interesting to participate in the discussion.</p>

<p>Thanks again for your comments!</p>

[laura_kamler]

<p>I like the original becaue it seems to have a very natural feel to it. It has an early evening glow to it with touches of color. I liked it BW as good or even more. I think I would show the couple both. I wouldn't do any of the color alterations already shown other than the BW.</p>

[markonestudios]

Looking at this again and having read the numerous posts, I still think the original and Marc William's B&W conversion are the best. The rest are all a detraction (IMHO) from the "moment" that you have so beautifully captured...

[rayt]

<p>What I got out of all this reading is that 28 different people have 28.2 different opinions. Photography is an art and what is pleasing to one is not pleasing to another. I personally thought some of the adjustments sucked. But that is my opinion and it ain't worth anything.</p>

<p>What is most important, regardless of all other issues, is to please the client. They are the ultimate critics as they are the ones paying the bill. What I or others think is OK does not matter as we are not the client.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Plenty already written on color and cropping.</p>

<p>I personally find the tuft of hair flying off the groom distracting.</p>

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>I like the orginal and the BW version. If I were to suggest any improvements, it may be to tone down the orange a little bit, but not completly. </p>