Post Processing, Equipment or Technique?

[chris_beck2]

<p>I am constantly trying to improve my photography skills and equipment so that I can achieve the quality shots that command peoples attention.<br>

I understand there is an instinct to wedding photography in being able to recognize a moment and capture it while the event is happening.<br>

But I have been mulling over my photographs and realising they are not even close to what some people are putting out there and I'm wondering is it equipment or post processing that is allowing them to achieve the detail and shot style.<br>

For example, this technique I see so often is the washed out look. Where the scene has great detail, but the whites are almost nearly blown out and the colors have a strange saturation to them. Any ideas on how this style is achieved. I tried contacting the photographer herself, with no response.<br>

Is it more in the photoshop/lightroom work or is it equipment, shooting with higher end equipment(I shoot with a Nikon D700).<br>

Any thoughts are apprecaited.<br>

[bobcossar]

<p>Creative images begin in your <em><strong>brain</strong> </em> . The<strong><em> how</em> </strong> to get the results is also about what you <em><strong>think</strong> </em> .........not what you can copy from another photographer.<br>

So the answer is that is all about <em><strong>photoshop, lightroom, higher end gear</strong> </em> ......but is also<em><strong> NOT </strong> </em> about these things too.<br>

You can figure tis out for yourself......indeed you MUST do it that way unless you have no original thoughts of your own. I am sure you DO though........so don't worry about the "stuff".....just solve the problem/challenge/opportunity.....regards, Bob</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Chris, I'm guessing that you've lifted the above images from the photographer's website which is likely against the forum guidelines.</p>

<p>Washed-out looks and blown highlights can be due to poor exposures or deliberate exposures and post-processing techniques. The sample images below illustrates straight-forward post-processing (top sample) while the image below has been given an artistic action.</p><div></div>

[emma_g2]

<p>These effects are most likely done in the post processing, using filters in Photoshop, and also by modifying the black and white balance.<br>

In addition to Bob's response, whilst originality and personal creativity is important, it's good practice to be able to "copy' a shot you like, as then you will be able to make shots the way you imagine them when you create your own images. You will have the skills to be able to do whatever you think inside your head if you can think it.<br>

:)</p>

[karina_a]

<p>Hi Chis, <br>

Whoever's shots these are they are lovely - both the shooting and the post-processing. Wouldn't it be good though to work out what your vision is (and how to achieve it) separate to other photographers? It is hard to know exactly where you are at as you haven't posted work that I can see, but I don't think this person's work is due to their equipment. It's not any one thing: they have had vision, good eye for location and for composition, good raport with their clients (to get a good response), strong shooting skills, good use of DOF, and good post-processing skills.</p>

<p>Do you use Lightroom? Have you tried playing around with it to see what can be achieved creatively without even having to go into PS? If you haven't - maybe try playing around with your own shots and move the sliders around (increasing blacks slightly, altering the histogram for different effects, decreasing saturation and increasing vibrance, slight vignette's etc). Playing around with your own shots and what can be achieved with them will help you to clarify your vision using your own work and vision as a starting point. </p>

<p>I don't have any of my wedding work in my gallery (my gallery is all work from a few years ago when starting out), and I am only a beginner, but one of the things I am doing to clarify my vision is to as well as practicing a lot and also trying lots of different styles of shooting (although trying to do that without looking at the style of any one photographer because I don't want to look the same as someone else), has been to do some post-processing courses. I realised after doing this that I didn't need to do any fancy post work to make my work pop, but rather to understand colour management (all my work was looking flat because I needed to learn colour management and also proper use of histograms in post). Sometimes the basics really are what works, and this person really has those skills down pat. The post stuff doesn't look that complex - I reckon with a short course you should be able to achieve post-processing that helps you to achieve your vision. Don't get me wrong - you may have that already as well - it is hard to know without seeing your work. Anyway - good luck with it all, and look forward to hopefully seeing your work.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I see why photogs do this for some images, but don't care much for it.</p>

<p>I think this is done more often than not to bring up detail in shadows in shots where the light was too low for the shadows to hold details and subsequently pushing the exposure blows (or nearly) the whites/sky etc. I don't know if it's simply that many photographers don't know how to expose correctly, refuse to stop down, refuse to use flash (or don't know how) or what, but it is prevalent in newer photogs work these days.</p>

<p>If you like it, you can make it happen using a layer then setting that dupe layer to overlay, and then adjust opacity to suit. Also adding a blur gives that "glow" effect and softens the harsh whites.</p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

[chris_beck2]

<p>I appreciate everyones response. I'll try to address the questions, or comments. First of all, I think Emma hit it right on the head, that copying a process teaches you how to get from point A to point B and along the way somewhere you will find your own style. I get the use of DOF and Composition, using the eye to find the right shot, but the question was tailored more toward the style of post processing. I was almost sure it wasnt the gear, but a technique, or filter used in PS or Lightroom, blowing out highlights just a little bit, and modifying the saturation and white balance. I do use lightroom, but the problem with my photos is they look realistic, almost automatic with strong DOF and dynamic range, but this photo, to me anyway is captivating. I'm down on my port right now, maybe it's just a phase. For those who were interested in seeing my work its at <a href="http://weddings.memoriesri.com">http://weddings.memoriesri.com</a> any comments or thoughts would be very much appreciated. </p>

[karina_a]

<p>Hi Chris,<br>

Thanks for your answer - it makes it a bit clearer what you are after. Esp when you say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"the problem with my photos is they look realistic"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just had a look at your site and there are some lovely shots in there. Just my 2 cents (keep in mind I am a relative newbie to weddings, but I do shoot a lot for myself, and try to be creative, so think I may have something to offer, and keeping in mind you asked for comments on your photos and how you could make them more realistic): Your shots are lovely, but if you are concerned that they look too realistic, I totally get what you are trying to say - when I do travel and street photography, I am trying to shoot every day things, but to give them a bit of magic, or probably more correctly - to find the magic that is already contained within them. Also approaching a wedding or baby shoot - I am looking for something to show the emotion, magic, epic/iconic/classic/otherworldly aspects - because a wedding is not just a series of mundane events - it contains many layers - emotional, iconic/symbolic (it is a symbol both of the love and relationship of the couple and their family and friends, but also an archetypal level of 'LOVE' if that makes sense - something deeper), magical: 'wow I have been dreaming of this moment for so long and in my mind it has taken on magical and epic aspects, and now it is really happening and the photos will have to try to show all the deeper levels to the next generation etc'; Beauty: brides work quite hard to get everything organised to look as good as they do on the day - and want to see the results in photos, but also it is important to translate the inner beauty of the people involved. </p>

<p>There many ways to try to achieve the above, and I am not saying I am there in any way yet, but when I see the work of people who are, some of the things they are doing - apart from having flawless technique - are:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Shooting from different heights, angles and distances - to find the magic of that particular shot (whilst your shots are lovely, they are perhaps not always varied enough from this perspective, which means not finding the sweet spot for that shot - when you are often front and centre (in terms of the plane of relationship between the camera and the subject), things will look more realistic. I would have liked to see shots that were much closer in - more detail shots - and then some that were much further away and showed the people in context with the surroundings - which hopefully are stunning, and if not then you can find something stunning somewhere nearby).</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Using shallow DOF to highlight the subject, simplify the image, get rid of clutter, increase creativity and add a bit of magic.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>These two above things are what I say to friends who ask "how can I make my photos look less like snapshots" when they are about to go travelling - vary your view on all the 3 dimensions until you see the magic in the subject, and think about the DOF that will bring attention to the subject and magic to the shot).</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Looking for amazing light opportunities, and when they are not there, creating them - beautiful light on faces, stormy clouds, gorgeous window light, and if none of above available - then really well-achieved fill light.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Having great tonal range (both in camera and in post - your B&W shots were lovely, but the tonal range made them look flat and did them a disservice - the whites weren't clean and the blacks were dark grey - maybe do a search on Marc Williams recipe for 'creamy B&W conversions. Also your coloured shots also looked a bit flat to me - which I think was your post-processing letting your shots down, and they could be really great if you improve that. Again - I really found doing short courses, or even using online tutorials in Lightroom and PS really helped me with this. (Aplogies if you are already a post-wizz, but you were asking how to achieve photos that didn't look so 'realistic', and I really do think tonal range is key in this. Having a decent S curve can really make photos that look more snap-shotty and flat (as most digital photos do just straight out of camera) can really help them to pop. I reckon just making some basic contrast adjustments in LR would really improve the flatness, and also keeping in mind the medium you are exporting to (using sRGB if you are exporting to computer or minilab, and whatever colour space your lab is using if you use a Pro lab - hopefully they are using AdobeRGB or ProPhoto - when I wasn't aligning my colour space to my labs or my output unit, my results were very flat. Also - if your monitor isn't calibrated - that will also create a world of pain. Another thing I found really useful for learning to improve my post and make it more creative was to purchase some Action sets, and then rather than just using them (which can make your work look like everyone else's) I used them to learn how to approach making Actions, and increase creativity, and then started to make my own. Jeff Ascough has a great set of actions you can purchase for not very much, and you may find they help you to start learning some of these steps. His B&W conversions are gorgeous, and his 'Botox Baby' if used very delicately and without overkill (very easy to overkill blur and look cheesy) is great for smoothing skin-tones and using in other parts of the photo to give an 'otherworldly feel' - or you could play a little with making your own.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>A lot of your shots seem to be taken at the ceremony or reception where you can always of course take great shots, but if you want to get creative and do the sort of shots you have used as an example, you may need to ask for time with the couple between ceremony and reception to go somewhere with an interesting creative background as in the shots you chose, and where you have more time to be creative.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>One of the things I notice about the really great photographers is they really shoot the relationships well and show the emotion - you may well have lots more shots that are not on your website, but looking for some more candid, non-setup emotional moments may help too.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>As well as good basic house-keeping post-processing, the pro's I like are able (selectively and without overkill) to use creative post-processing - selective blur, selective darkening, changing saturation/vibrancy to give a particular look, and again - damn good B&W conversions. And they know when to stop - there is a fine line between creative and cheesy. And again - often you can achieve the magic in LR just by adjusting the curves, without having to add any fireworks in PS.</li>

</ul>

<p>Anyway - I have gone on somewhat - sorry! But these are just my thoughts as to some of the things that might help your photos look less realistic, and give them a bit of sparkle and magic. Take it with a grain of salt as I am an amateur, but one who has thought long and hard on these things, and tried to do what you are doing myself (and still am).</p>

<p>Again - compliments on some lovely photos, best of luck, and look forward to seeing some of your journey as you work with your vision. PS: Sorry if I have said anything that didn't make sense - I am supposed to be organising a dinner party and got side-tracked thinking about this and won't have time to re-read or edit this or I will be caught with no food to feed people ; )</p>

<ul>

</ul>

[karina_a]

<p>PS: Typo: I should have said 'how you could make them 'LESS realistic'. </p>

<p>One other thing I will say and then I promise I will shut up ; ) One of the things I love about Marc William's photos (and others of his level) is that they look Classic to me. When I say classic - they capture something of the archetype of wedding and love, and they are timeless. There are many ways they do this, but to be brief one of the keys is that they focus on the subject and the shapes and lines, and not the clutter around - and there are many ways they do that (DOF, composition, leading lines etc); but looking at his gallery and thinking about what makes each photo look 'Classic' and therefore not so 'realistic' - or to my mind 'mundane' would be a word (without in any way saying your photography is mundane - just meaning less 'every day') might be a good exercise - and is one I have found very useful on this subject. For my 2 cents - the post processing he and others do is one of the things that helps, but is by no means even number 10 on the list.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Chris, I took a look at your images and I think they are all pretty good. You're getting good exposures without blowing out the highlights and your images are in focus. I suspect you could use some help with your post-processing.....especially for your B&W conversions. Below is a before and after of one of your images to show my typical pp tweaks, let me know if this is part of what you're looking for. As a personal project, see if you can spot the major differences between the two images. I also suspect that with the right set of artistic actions, you can achieve: "....the scene has great detail, but the whites are almost nearly blown out and the colors have a strange saturation to them."</p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Here's one more sample set with your original on top, an artistic action in the middle, and simple enhancements on the bottom.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Something like this...</p><div></div>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I liked the shot David S used, so here is what I meant in my post about the way I do that look. I added a little bit of brightness to the left side of the faces in addition to the global adjustments.</p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Here's another shot of yours with the "blur & blow" effects........ (the effect was erased around their eyes).</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>It is good to know how to use Photoshop and get the effects you want. However, I would ask whether your clients complain that the photos are too realistic? I kind of doubt it. To me, doing effects, particularly effects similar to 'everyone else', does nothing for the client, who is probably interested in realistic images of themselves and their day (save for a few done artistically, but very few...maybe). Doing effects also does not help you stand out at all, which is something ones needs to do these days.</p>

[chris_beck2]

<p>Wow, what a great response from everyone, I sincerely appreciate it. So the original images have been taken down, I guess there is an issue with screen grabbing images, which I didnt realise. I would have posted directly to her site, but she has a flash site and the URL never changes. You can visit it at <a href="http://www.duganphotography.com/">http://www.duganphotography.com/</a> and parse through her wedding library.<br>

Ive been staring at the images all day, and I get the sense that alot of what is achieved is terrific DOF with the use of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens which I don't have. There is also tremendous detail on some of the detail shots and I think another thing I am mistaken is the ability to capture detail of the alter shots... that I think can only be attained with a long range lens(or else you would be on top of them). So for starters I'm thinking much of my issue with my own port is lack of a long range lens.<br>

I basically shoot all day with my 24-70mm f.2.8 which is really versitile and great for indoor shots, but alot of the shots lack the detail I think I would get from a 70-200mm, because unless you are on top of the action happening, there is a lot of cropping to get right.<br>

From there I figured there were some use of actions and all the suggestions were fantastic, I was thankful for the criticism on the b&w's I have and as such I will definatley work on those shots. I got asked a great question of whether the clients have complained about the realism of the photos... and the answer is 'no' so perhaps I am fighting a stupid battle trying to create 'dream sequence' type images, and perhaps I should just stick to the style I have now. But there is something captivating about these images and I wouldnt want to miss an opportunity to shoot from another perspective if it meant improving my portfolio.<br>

Well I'm babbling now, so again, thank you for all the kind suggestions, and assistance, I will definatley keep working on it, and hopefully by spring next year I'll have the 70-200 and I will be a little more complete.<br>

Thank You</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Chris--don't get hung up on the 70-200mm lens or the range of the lens. While having long teles is nice, it really should not be the reason for great detail in an image. Given the limits of cropping, one 'could' use the 24-70mm and crop, if you are talking about reach, rather than detail. One also can get very fine prime teles as well, and some of them are not hugely expensive. Just having a tele or the 70-200mm does not guarantee 'dream sequence' images. There are many other elements involved, processing being just one, and not all of them are technical but come from inside you--as Karina A. talked about.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>To me, doing effects, particularly effects similar to 'everyone else', does nothing for the client ... and also does not help you stand out at all, which is something ones needs to do these days. (Nadine)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this hits the nail on the head. There's nothing more boring than looking at 'me too' websites with 'me too' actions. A few years ago highly processed images were unusual and the people doing them were very at the top of their game. Now they're common place (commoditised, even) and are more often the domain of people just starting out. There's no skills needed to use them, unless you count the ability to unpack a zip file of pre-made actions and click a button.<br>

You can get a long way to where you want to be just in camera, providing you have a reasonable grip on your skills. Moderate over exposure, spot metering on faces, etc will give images with lots of pop and gently bleached skin. Even better, try using film and really over-exposing everything by a stop or two. Either of these approaches will give you images that look very polished (well lit, high contrast, soft and diffuse lighting effects, creamy tones) but without the telltale signs of heavy handed post-processing.</p>

<p>Your clients will love them all the more because they'll look great and their images won't date.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I really don't think its the equipment or the post processing. The originals are fine. Your framing etc is fine. Its the subjects that are the problem. You have to coach the subjects more. I used to have to yell at them: " Come on, you are supposed to be in love!"<br>

With the first two couples you show us, the bride simply does not have that special expression "I am in love", or the "just you wait till tonight" look. Its not a question of brightening the photo. It's as if the brides were bored with the whole exercise. This happens a lot, so don't worry.<br>

I don't do much wedding work now, but I see a lot and "the look" is what you are after. That starts with the mood and attitude the subjects are in. Maybe these two brides were not liking having their photo taken. Lots of brides are never happy with their appearance and it shows. <strong>The ones who are in a dream of happiness definitely show it</strong> . The photo needs to be as if you were capturing that intimate moment.<br>

The guys are smiling and with the first couple, the bride looks very self conscious and the smile is forced. She is taller than him. Does she feel that does not look good, being taller. She has hunched her shoulders down to lessen that fact. This can be fixed. Find some sloping ground and get the groom to stand uphill. Its a bit more gentle that bringing a block of wood for him to stand on, and I've done that before. In the second, the bride isn't even smiling at all! There is no chemistry. The guy is fine. He looks like the cat that has had the cream! In both, the brides have this wooden expression.<br>

The last one is too bright and the highlights are all blown. But again, the bride looks like she is in pain, not in a dream. Is there no true love in Chicago? Do you see what I am trying to say? Coach your subjects and get them to be more natural and pretend that they are alone and want to share this precious, intimate moment that you are recording. If the couple do not get it, no amount of post processing will fix an attitude.<br>

You should also consider getting the longer zoom. Some of the early 80-200s were really good. In particular the AF-D twin ring 2.8. The one that many of my guys still use today for portraits with the D700 is the pre 2005 80-200 F4 AI-s. Its sharper than the current zooms and the focus is smooth and low geared so you can be accurate. Being a fixed F4, when you drop down to 5.6 you get a nice depth of field and also good bokeh for a zoom. They are cheap too. So perhaps being too close is intimidating and causes some discomfort. I was always over 50 and mostly at 135 in my work. I sometimes used a 200. But all primes. My feet were the zoom. I always noticed that the expressions in the faces were more natural the further away I was. Only when I had a huge group shot was I down to a 35. I appreciated that the longer the lens, the trickier the depth of field became, so manual focusing was essential.</p>

<p>I do hope this helps.</p>

 

[chris_beck2]

<p>Stephen, thanks for the advise, I love your energy and enthusiasm. The sets that are on this page are examples of some of the posters taking shots from my website and putting them into a "dream" post processing. If you want to see the originals they are on my website at <a href="http://weddings.memoriesri.com">http://weddings.memoriesri.com</a> . But I do agree the brides do look like the expression is forced. Perhaps that is on my end, but it always seems like we are rushing along, not enough time spent getting the posed formals so you can't get bunches of shots and then yell at them and take more. But Ill keep all that in mind.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Chris, I took a quick look at the Faith Dugan's website and much of her work is stellar due to multiple factors related to exposure, lighting, post-processing, and some Yervant-style actions. Although she's a relatively young shooter she's paid her dues and worked hard at it for the past 6 plus years. The long lens may be fun to play around with and may add an extra dimension to your coverage but it's not going to give you her results. Good luck.</p>

[karina_a]

<p>Hi again Chris. Yeah - Stephen is right - lots of the magic usually comes from the happiness and love in the couples eyes and mouths. Lots of people do experience that always having to rush along problem. I have been told by long-term shooters that it really helps to set up expectations in the initial interview - ie: to let them know that of course you will fit into whatever they need for their day, and get good shots with the time you have, but that if they want more intimate couple photos that they will need to schedule a good amount of time for that to happen. </p>

<p>I found in the few weddings I have shot that if you do have a tiny bit of extra time you can take them away from everyone else (very hard to look all romantic when everyone is looking on), hopefully find a lovely background, and tell them just to pretend you are not there, and catch up with what happened that morning and in the ceremony, and that is always a great time to get intimate shots of them being romantic and loving as well as having some laughs - because it is the first opportunity they have had to stop and relax after a hectic morning, to tell each other the stories of their funny, silly moments that happened in the morning, to relive the beauty and romance of the ceremony, to have a hug and steal some kisses. Then when you have a good amount of shots of them ignoring you, you can get a few of them facing the camera, but by this time they will be relaxed with each other and a bit more 'dreamy'. If they instantly go stiff, you can ask them to relax back into that lovely energy they just had with each other. </p>

<p>With some couples who don't naturally relax in front of camera I got them to sit together with their bridal party and have a coffee or champagne somewhere close by (after the family formals were taken and everyone else had gone off), and it was easy to take photos of the couple relaxing while they were laughing with friends, and stealing kisses - I used the 24-70 for this, which was plenty long enough to give them that intimate space and still get the shot. My wedding photographer did the same thing, and the best couple shots from our wedding, as well as the best bridal party shots were taken at this time, because none of us were aware of the camera, and we all felt so warm and fuzzy. I realise often this time is not available, but can often be made available if people realise early on that it helps them get the photos they want. The couples we have done it with have thanked me many times after also and said it was their favourite part of the day because they got to relax and really 'be' with their partner and also their bridal party for the first time and really the only time in the whole day, before they get swept up again by duties. If there's no time for a sit down somewhere, we found even a brief walk in a bit of greenery whilst ignoring me for most of the time got great candids and set the mood up more intimately for some more 'face the camera' shots.</p>

[karina_a]

<p>PS: we have the 70-200, but I must say that apart from one of us (I shoot with my hubby) using it at the back of the church on a tripod during the ceremony, it never comes out. I mostly use the 24-70 as well as a wide, and the 50mm 1.4 for detail shots. That's just me, but just so you know - it can be done with what you have. I find if you make your energy small and warm and remind them to pretend you are not there when you are getting candids you can get pretty close to people (apart from the ceremony obviously) without ruining the ambience. </p>

[karina_a]

<p>PPS: Thanks for sharing Faith's website - her work is stunning. I will have to stick with what I first said - with her (like all my other fav. top pros) - it is not any fancy PS tricks that are making her work shine (although she definitely has good solid non-trick PP that gives great depth, colour and tonal range, and just a handful of photos with 'effects' which as Nadine says, is the way to go), but rather all the other things I mentioned in my way too long post, and also what we were saying about finding a way to be close to the action whilst encouraging the intimacy and joy to come through.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Chris, I echo the responses. I think your images are fine. Dont get caught up in trying to do things the way everyone else does them. Its your style and its not open for debate.</p>

<p>Steer clear of asking for photo critique as well. You have your own style and there is no right or wrong when it comes to style. Everyone has their own style, and opinion about how they would have done these shots. The only rights and wrongs are when it comes to exposure and focus.....none of which you seem to struggle with. And so, asking enough people to judge your images will bring negative responses eventually. Again, because everyone has their own style and yours may not be it. This can hurt your confidence which you already show a slight lack of. I say this cause you seem to be unsure about your work and what you are trying to accomplish. Be confident. Your work is very good, so be proud of it. Confidence goes a long way when making great images.<br>

No mistake, everyone can always learn something. Even Ansel Adams could be tought something, but it doesnt mean his work was bad. If Ansel Adams had told me that he would have tilted a particular shot of mine and that mine was bad because I didnt....I'd ignore him and never look back. But if he said, the focus is off or the shots are overexposed, then I'd listen, he knows a thing or two about those, but if he wants tilted shots, he can tilt his own shots, I may not have wanted mine tilted. You see, its my vision/style not anyone elses.</p>

<p>Just be careful....you do very nice work and I'd hate to see your confidence damaged over something that shouldnt be.<br>

I'd keep doing everything exactly like you are doing them until the people that matter(bride and groom) say otherwise. Like Nadine said, most of this stuff is done for the photographer to make them happy, the Bride almost always wants natural looking images that make them feel that special day everytime they look at them....thats what a Bride wants. They want to tear up eveytime they see the photos years down the road.<br>

My wife and I have terrible photographs of our wedding.....in regards to exposure, color, softness etc and my mother in law paid thru the nose for them in 1998. But my wife has never said one word about that. She still tears everytime she looks at them to this day. Why, because the photographer captured the emotion of that day. I never cry. I cried a little that day and he got it. I was 18 at the time, so it got me. I tried to burn it, but.....<br>

Brides dont care how creative the photog was in Photoshop. You can get the same dramatic feel and center of attention by capturing an emmotional moment with shallow DOF, it doesnt take a filter in Photoshop. I agree, these that do this are just copying others(most of them, not all) and al the Bride wants are images like yours:-)</p>