why do most photogs now do low-contrast photos?

[greg_dunbar1]

<p>I seem to notice most wedding photographers out there are going for the low-contrast editing on all their images. That's the best I can explain it. The blacks are not truly black and are a dark gray color, and the whites are not truly white, more of an off-white.<br /><br />Is this what is in style now? Is this what brides want? Because I noticed 99% of the wedding photographers around here charging $4k+ or more edit in this style.<br /><br /></p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>My $0.02, it's the style now. I use a filter program called Exposure by Alien Skin to get a base and then editing to suit my needs. Some people sell actions that do it as well for a different look (I've purchased some "Paint The Moon") actions.</p>

<p>What I'd like to know though, is they do look fantastic on screen but printed... uggg!!! On computer/screen they give a nostalgic old look as if it was film and faded and you know that was the intended look because computer screens have a reference you know the image is that way on purpose. It can attract business, they do look fantastic and nostalgic. However printing you don't get the same reference or know it was edited, they tend to scream something went wrong and need to be reprinted to be "normal". If they want prints, I've found it can be a bit of a dilema. </p>

[making_time]

<p>My cynical side is telling me that it's down to batch processing raw files with the same setting applied.</p>

<p>Mind you, I did recently see one photographer's portfolio where the white flower bouquet highlights were consistently blown, so that's probably fuelled my poor processing cynicism.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Better than the style of pee green/yellow from last year. I don't edit this way because I want the images to stand the test of time and explain this to possible clients. Might look OK on your computer/iPad today but how will you like these on the wall at at your 20th anniversary?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Yet another trend. I thought it started with one of the actions from VSCO film. Black and whites look exactly like you underexposed your film terribly, so the resulting negative is really thin, and you tried to make the best of it. At least, that was what I used to get in photo school when I underexposed film. And I agree with Matt--a print will look terrible.</p>

[green_photog]

<p>It's really hard to create original photos. Everyone can get the perfect focus and exposure so what's left for the photog to do. PP is the final frontier. Style me pretty is full of these kind of editing. To me, it's not my style. But I used to not like cut off faces photos too but I'm doing them now as the market likes them. Maybe I will be those actions and use them if the market calls for them.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Film imitation (of what film looks like when you mess it up, of course). Instagram ~ VSCO ~ etc etc</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I haven't shot a wedding for decades, but am guessing the flat look might be the result of avoiding clipping at the expense of a full dynamic range. This is a touchier situation with digital than with the old soft-working negative film stocks of decades past.</p>

[greg_dunbar1]

<p>example 1<br>

http://stephaniewilliamsphotography.com/blog/category/weddings/</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p> I just don't know why any one would want to process like that. B&W prints never really looked like that. Well I did have some old fogged Agfa paper that would make prints just like that so I threw it in the bin.</p>

[green_photog]

<p>From the photog's standpoint, low contrast with washed out colors help hide a lot of problems. Colors will no longer need to be correct and so are WB and skin tone. Some people are more green base and some are more yellow.</p>

<p>Why would the client want that? There's no accounting for taste is my answer. This kind of PP will make your set stand out as to being nostalgic, antique, artsy, airy or dreamy.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>If you can get inside the heads of today's clients maybe you could find out just what is the basis for a lot of -- to be charitable -- dreamy photography. What are the brides and MOBs looking at? Is there some TV program about brides that they all watch? Some "cool" bride magazine? I remember when wedding photos were so stiff it looked like everybody in the wedding party had been dipped in starch and hung out to dry. I shot "candid" weddings back then, "photojournalism," style, and my clients loved it. Aunt Maud looked like herself in my photos not like a cardboard cutout.</p>

[savagesax]

Everyone, a few, no one? This is the question!

 

How many wedding pros change their camera settings and Photoshop 3,4,5,6 editions and Lightroom settings to adjust and get that film look?

 

When film ended, the wedding film, the digital has much more contrast. Well yuk!

 

I am able to get the look of film at every wedding, however you have to know how to set your camera and since I use Photoshop 5, I reset a lot of those settings as well to take away the contrast. If you do this correctly you can set everything just one time and not for each image. (Batch file)

 

Not that it's a secret, I could give out a bunch of settings to everyone and it won't work with your cameras and with photoshop. By the way, I have Photoshop 6 and I'm not happy at all. I need to read a book on it. Lots of new toys and a grey background now.

 

As said many times before in past posts I use a soft filter for close-ups. Not cheap. I paid $275 for my 77mm ring size lens. It's not just any filter, it's called a Softar 1. Hasselblad made them and they were plastic. $275 for a piece of plastic. Well good news here. Another company has the rights to make the same thing as this Softar 1. It's a Schneider Classic 1/2. This has the same bubbles as the Softar 1.

 

So I don't think this look ever left for weddings and the brides wanted more contrast, but the cameras are at fault. However a lot of brides do like this look and this is why I usually show 2 albums when the brides come by. It's important to "Teach," the couples the differences. An educated bride is a happy bride. I have to say that EVERY bride wants the film, soft look. With full lengths they don't care.

 

The presets on your cameras and in photoshop are not set for that film look. I believe Photoshop is set for the average user going on vacations and taking a lot of wonderful scenics. Taking family shots, just really fun average setups.

 

Don't kill me here, but a lot of people use photoshop to correct the exposures and their kids got the program at student discounts and of course for their photo classes. Of course a few of the programs were copied by getting the keys off of the internet. Well even at the huge student discount families surely don't want to throw out this expensive program. Besides the basic adjustments, most people don't use them.

 

By the way, thank you Photoshop for taking care and understanding how much the $300 or so discounts help out families in hard times.

[shrubber]

<p>I'm not a professional by any means, infact I do a lot of looking up other weddings trying to fuel my inspiration. Both of my favourite tilt shift wedding photographers Jeff Newsom and Jonas Peterson (who I both _love_ the work of, but would never try to mimic composition wise, as I'd shoot myself in the foot), have been doing it for ages. I follow a lot of the local photographers here in Australia, and slowly but surely it's been moving down the chain - even right down to the student level!<br /> I'm editing a batch of wedding photos now, and, I'm trying so hard to stop myself from doing it:<br>

<br /> a) It's really easy to make a photo look good, or like top professionals by ruling down the levels.<br>

b) if the white balance is off in a photo, has too much yellow, it can look really nice and it's _really_ easy to fix (I had some presets I made for some event photography where the lighting was TERRIBLE, the <br>

c) Inexperienced people, like myself, can accidently over expose an image, leaving godawful white bits to deal with. Why try cloning it out, when you can just rule it out! <br /> I know two of my major weaknesses are composition (I always center the person... seriously trying to kick that habbit) and lack of consistency (ie every photo in the set looks differnet). At least if I do rule out the whites and the blacks, its makes my body of work look so much more consistant.</p>

<p>However I must note, I don't mind some of the black and whites and they CAN look uber nice printed (I get them printed on pearlized paper though *swoons*), however if I am printed I'll add in a slight yellow / blue tinge just to add in contrast, and keep them black and white on the final images (just because the print place I go to, from experience that looks the nicest). <br /> I however HATE, HATE with a passion the blue shadows and the yellow highlights overdone. It's like they used that variations filter, and then went Shadows -> blue, blue, blue, blue, blue lighter lighter lighter, Highlights, yellow, yellow, yellow, red, darker, darker darker for every image. Seriously -__-</p>

<p>PS:<br>

I had a tilt shift before it was cool * hipster glasses*</p>