Blown whites - trendy?

[steve_mason5]

<p>I have seen photos from 3 different wedding recently, and all 3 had a lot of shots with totally roasted whites. Is this some new trend? Or did all 3 couples (all 3 happened to be on low budgets) choose bad photographers?<br>

I'm no wedding photographer, so I'm certainly in no position to critique, but I really had to bite my tongue when I saw these.</p>

 

[kevin_swan1]

<p>While blowing the highlights is definitely deliberate on the part of some popular contemporary photographers, I think this is also related to the growing popularity of digital publishing. Specifically, highlights that look blown on a computer monitor may actually retain some detail when printed on pro-level printers. Physical print media has a broader dynamic range than modern display monitors.</p>

<p>That said, some photographers definitely deliberately blow the highlights as a stylistic decision. I'm not making a value judgement on that decision, but some clients do gravitate towards that "look".</p>

[art_tatum]

<p>David? Calling David S.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>It's a new trend. Like all trends, it will have it's day and then something else will come along.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Or is it just a rising level of incompetence.......artistic or technical?</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>“all 3 had a lot of shots with totally roasted whites. Is this some new trend? Or did all 3 couples (all 3 happened to be on low budgets) choose bad photographers?”</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think probably a combination of all three:</p>

<ul>

<li>a trend, </li>

<li>“bad” photographers; </li>

<li>but mostly that “bad” is defined as “blindly and aimlessly following the trend”</li>

</ul>

<p>WW</p>

<p>(Art was too quick - I wanted to be first to call on David, for advice, comment and a treatise.)<br />(Art - did you work out what to do with that down time at the Wedding?)</p>

[the_mongrel_cat]

<p>it would be good if you could post a link to said images, or images like them showing what you mean. </p>

<p>i have seen some pictures where the whites have been blown where really there is no need and it offers no artistic merit. this is the fault of the bad photographer, thinking they are following a 'style' which is actually a fad.</p>

<p>but equally i have seen many good pictures where the whites are sacrificed on order to expose a beautiful face shot or expression. the good examples of this are usually, but not always seen in reportage style. i can think of one example that stand out - a beautiful jeff ascough shot of a bride having her veil sorted, the background is blown but her face is exposed perfectly (you can see it on his website). </p>

<p>i do not mean to imply that ascough has many shots with blown highlights, far from it.</p>

<p>but i agree with the reaction of the OP, most of the examples that i come across are just badly done, end of story. however, it is not the blowing of highlights that is the problem, it is the badly executed blowing of highlights.</p>

 

[dave_wilson1]

<li>but mostly that “bad” is defined as “blindly and aimlessly following the trend” </li>

<p>WW<br>

Excellent. How perfectly said.</p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>Kevin, print media doesn't have anything close to the dynamic range of a computer screen.</p>

<p>Blown highlights have never been in style. Brighter, airier images, that feel natural, have been in style for quite some time. Maybe it began to be popular again somewhere in the 90's with Donna Hay or Martha Stewart?</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Blown whites can be deliberate and I think there has been some trendiness towards them over the past 4-5 years. Personally I think the trend was given a huge push after Kevin Kubota came out with his very popular artistic actions about the same time. I don't believe the treatment was created by Kevin but I think he helped it become quite popular. The sample images below show the classic studio-style lighting at the portable backdrop at the reception site. The 2nd image shows the exact same image but it was given an artistic action designed to push the whites among other things.</p>

<p>However, I think there is a definite sloppiness among many new shooters that results in unintentional blown whites due to poor exposures and a lack of any supplemental lighting. Indeed, most pros a few years back prided themselves on their lighting skills. I fear that many of the new crop of shooters couldn't tell the difference between short-light, broad-light, etc......and IMO, that's a shame, it cheapens the profession and devalues what it means to be a professional photographer. Instead of biting your tongue I would encourage you to speak up and educate the people around you, even if you become a "lone voice in the wilderness". Thanks for posting the topic :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for the page Art and WW :-)</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>There are blown whites and then there are <em>blown whites</em>. What David S. shows is not anywhere close to the extremes I've seen--this is more like the 'bright and airy' Senor describes. In extreme versions, for instance, a bride's nose disappears, and there may be lots of flare as well, with details disappearing into the air and outlines merging into the background. It makes my eyes hurt. In many cases, the entire set of images is treated the same way--something that I see no reason for. I can see the occasional blown highlights for artistic reasons, but not for the entire set.</p>

[richardsnow]

 

<p>If you'd like to see "bad photography" blown whites, I'd happily send anyone interested photos from MY wedding. </p>

<p>For those of you that remember, I took my photographer to small claims court. An agreement with monetary compensation to me and that did not result in a judgement, (ie, there's no public record of the event), against my photographer was arranged earlier this week.</p>

<p>With this agreement, I retain all publishing rights that the photographer originally granted, so I can distribute them as I see fit. For educational purposes, you can contact me and I will send you screen resolution versions of the unedited photos as given to me by my "professional" photographer. Just contact me via the email link on my member profile page.</p>

<p>RS</p>

 

 

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"In many cases, the <strong>entire set of images is treated the same way</strong>--something that I see no reason for."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><strong>Yes!</strong></em> - then it becomes <strong><em>"my style".</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

WW</p>

<p>(Thanks for the mention Dave)</p>

[savagesax]

It's interesting that sometimes when shooting people their faces will be perfectly exposed, yet the dresses will be blown out. Sometimes this can't be avoided. I think this trend came around from the photographers making mistakes! Now these mistakes are called a new trend.

 

However, there are fixes to the problem. On my camera's, the 1ds Mk3's, has a setting in "Custom settings," which allows one to adjust the balance. So, by setting this function the whites are mellowed out a lot, perhap a full F stop, avoiding a total wipeout. The best way to discribe this setting is camparing negative film to positive - slides. Positive film has a very small latitude, perhaps 2 F stops or less. With negative film you can have up to 5 stops, depending on the type of film. You will be able to make a print up to 4 f stops.

 

Your eyes can see 11 stops or more, depending on the type of day. With my camera, when setting the custom setting to mellow out the whites the photo's look pretty good. You can still see details in the dresses! Kind of a very cool design from Canon. I have no idea if other cameras can do this, so check your manuals. This extra setting is probably equal to a 2 F stop range. Ansel Adams was able to use this technique in his darkroom. He could manipulate his images beyond the 4 stop latitude, which is why some of his images are simply incredible. You can see past 4 stops. If anyone is interested in this, pick up one of his books that talks about the zone system. It will really help you when working in photoshop bridge.

 

I won't make any comments about blowing out the whites because I don't want to sound like I'm judging this trend.

 

You can fix this problem by carefully shooting in RAW by using the manual setting on your cameras and exposing for towards whites. Later in photoshop you can fix the slighly under exposed faces. If the whites are reading 1/250th of a second at F11, I'd shoot it around F9. Part of the dress may be blown out but you can get back at least 1 F stop in photoshop. When you are shooting a wedding, doing nature work, anything that requires more than a 2 stop latitude, practice your exposures using the zone system. It will work for digital.

 

Perhaps the zone system can be googled so people interested may be able to get instructions instead of buy his books. I'd actually buy the book.

[marcsaint]

<p>My question: is what's <em>in</em> the white important to the person who wants the photo? If it's a bride who paid $5K+ for her wedding dress, then maybe she would like to see every bit of detail she paid for. If it's a bride who treasures the artistry of the shot (i.e. the airiness of blown-out whites) or the emotion the shot engenders then maybe maintaining detail in the whites is not so important. If she's planning a trash-the-dress session, it could go either way (wants a good record of the dress or doesn't give a darn). It's being able to suss out the bride's feelings that is part of the real art of professional wedding photography.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I never "like" blown whites, but I often like the images that are captured with natural light, where the highlights are blown as a function of correctly exposing the subject. It depends...</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_krouskop]

<p>I too have noticed this trend. I am sure it is intentional and it is very popular with the brides. I have been studying on how to get that Martha Stewart wedding look for a while now. I call it Martha Stewart, because I noticed it in her wedding magazine about a year ago. The photographers seem to shoot with very fast prime lenses and/or wide open on their zooms. They appear to be metering for skin tones and exposing for the shadows without regard for the highlights. I like this effect and will really put it to the test next Saturday at a wedding. I have found in this business that following trends mean more money. I can still follow a trend and maintain my style at the same time. If you don't stay current, then you don't get booked and if you don't get booked you find another profession.</p>

[markonestudios]

I'm with David W. on this. I do try to keep in as much detail as possible but sometimes just by the mere fact that I'm exposing correctly for skin tones etc, some of the white gets blown out. It's the nature of the beast. If done unintentionally or too often (and hidden behind oft' lame excuses about "style") then indeed it belies a lack of understanding of the craft and can tend to cheapen the profession, as David S. put it.

<p>In certain instances I may choose to blow out the whites myself in keeping with the 'key' of the image and wanting to draw attention perhaps to the bride's face. This image is a case in point; I had plenty of detail in the whites but in post I deliberately blew them in the dress but not on her skin... http://www.photo.net/photo/10831684

[fotografz]

<p>Agreed, Mark ... I think that with today's advanced post processing software, actions and plug-ins, one need not make high-key decisions while shooting ... but instead shoot for the best balanced exposure possible, and make the more creative or trendy decisions later. </p>

<p>It is when you shoot with true blown highlights that the decision becomes more or less irreversible. </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>While I'll admit that there may be some occasions where exposing for the skin will blow-out the highlights, you can almost always keep your highlights by using supplemental lighting. Choosing not to use supplemental lighting when you know how can be a professional choice, or expedient or simply sloppiness. Not understanding how to supplement the light is being ill-prepared to get the shot to begin with.....and not a style choice.</p>

[deanna_jones1]

<p>This could also be a result of the increasing popularity of photojournalistic style in wedding photography. I have noticed that quite a few photographers who shoot weddings in this style prefer not to use supplemental lighting. I have been shooting weddings for less than a year, though, so maybe I am incorrect.<br>

Additionally, I sometimes overexpose in order to make the photo look more "clean". For example, if there is a white cake with no white detail (only colored detail) in front of a white textured wall, I'll overexpose in order to remove the wall texture.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>Deanna, blowing highlights might well be one <em><strong>result</strong></em> of “photojournalistic style” because the choice is to not use supplemental lighting . . . <br />But the <strong><em>reason</em></strong> for blowing the highlights is not the "style choice” - the <strong><em>reason</em></strong> is usually always NOT knowing how: <em>NOT to use supplemental lighting</em>. (or - knowing how to correctly frame and expose using ONLY the Available Light).<br />As a packet of examples: there are 142 images in my portfolio here - shot indoors, outdoors, cloud cover bright sun, daytime, night-time . . . and not one image uses supplemental lighting. <br />There are very few blown highlights.<br>

Perhaps this is the most useful example: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=972502">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=972502</a> (I bet there is a blown bit on the last one - if anyone can find it - David will ! :)<br>

<br />I do have some AL images with blown highlights – but that is by my choice, though.<br /><br />WW</p>