Ideas for post-processing (amateur) wedding photos

[wader]

<p>Hi Folks,<br /> Long-time amateur at photography who still feels like a beginner . . . my sibling asked if I might try to take photographs at her (suddenly public) elopement. Not that I knew what I was doing - I mostly try outdoor photography and it shows in the shots I took :( . So, I'm hoping for some post-processing advice, please.<br /> <br /> I used a Nikon D300 with a Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8G lens and an SB-800 Speedlight (bounce). The D300 was set to save RAW+JPG and generally used aperture priority at f1.8-2.2.</p>

<p>Shots like that linked below (which was actually a quick test shot to get levels, etc.) are typical of one venue from that afternoon, the other location was also indoors but had a more contrasting background behind the subjects with easier lighting for me to manage.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ooofest.com/bwedding/DSC_3365-1.jpg"><strong>link to test shot</strong></a></p>

<p>I was hoping to post-process some of the better pictures for nice effect, but honestly have no clear direction for this type of simple composition, due to my lack of indoor/portrait experience. Figured that using this test photo for feedback would be applicable to how I might process the other photos.</p>

<p>My post-processing experiments with this test have been all over the place, but I'm generally thinking that less is more. First idea was to crop the couple in, clone out that face in the background which is between them, maybe bring out more contrast of the couple from the background . . . but, got stuck there. Really not sure what others here might consider a good path to take. Maybe this photo isn't worth saving, but I figured it is reasonable enough to experiment with.</p>

<p>I have Photoshop and Lightroom with Nik Collection and Replichrome as my local tools.</p>

<p>Ideas welcome!</p>

<p>- Wade</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Cute photo. I like it. The combination of her look of very slight bemused anxiety and his cat-who-ate-the-canary grin look very real, more so than many conventionally posed photos. And she looks lovely, so the expression doesn't detract at all.</p>

<p>The only thing you might consider is some retro vintage feel to emphasize the snapshot aesthetic. It might not please everyone but sometimes it works.</p>

<hr />

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17993637-lg.jpg" alt="Wade Boaz wedding photo DSC_3365-1_March 27, 2015__LR4" width="700" height="465" border="0" /><br /><em>Suggested retro-vintage snapshot aesthetic look.</em><br /> <em>(Let me know if you don't want this photo to appear online and I'll delete it - it's linked from a hidden folder.)</em></p>

[wader]

<p>Hi Lex,<br>

Thanks - I did experiment a bit with vintage, but I worried it might blend too much with the background. I like your sample and wonder if perhaps it might further benefit if I tone the walls a bit as well? At the very least, it does seem I should edit out that fellow's head which is showing between them.<br>

Oh, and which tool(s) did you happen to use, if I may ask?<br>

<br />(I think they should be OK with that photo being public - thanks for asking. Curiously enough, I think you described their personalities on display at that moment pretty well - and, I didn't give them time to setup for the test shot beyond asking them to look my way . . . this was only moments before their brief ceremony by the local Mayor)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I used Lightroom 4.4. You can see the specific adjustments in the EXIF data via <a href="http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.photo.net%2Fphoto%2F17993637-lg.jpg">this online meta data viewer</a>.</p>

<p>You're right about minimizing the out of focus head of the fellow in the background. A brush tool and some subtle selective desaturation should work.</p>

<p>I use a few tricks to emulate the look of simple snapshot cameras like Polaroids and those consumer grade 35mm P&S cameras of the 1970s-'90s. Today's digicams often have much better lenses. And we tend to favor more sharpness and fine detail than our old Polaroids and 4x6 minilab prints ever showed. Over the past year I've been studying my old family snapshots dating back decades and it's been an interesting learning experience, especially in trying to emulate those looks. It's also interesting to try to emulate the look of <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=andy+warhol+polaroids&newwindow=1&biw=1073&bih=617&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=G70UVb-xF9LXoAS8_YHADQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ">Andy Warhol's Polaroids</a>. If I'm recalling correctly he occasionally had subjects use fairly heavy makeup to minimize skin texture while making eyes pop.</p>

<p>I'll crank up the global noise reduction, especially luminance noise, to reduce skin texture and wrinkles, while using a fairly large radius with sharpening to retain the illusion of satisfactory sharpness in the eyes. And I'll crank up the masking to avoid excessive sharpening of skin texture, etc. Helps when the eyes have catchlights like your photos - less need to selectively use a brush tool on the eyes. Reducing the clarity slider a bit can help too.</p>

<p>If I have the original full resolution files I'll use more selective brush tools, but those can be tricky with smallish web sized JPEGs so I just used global tweaks here.</p>

<p>I never tried Replichrome, but the online examples look interesting. Ditto, VSCO -- the samples I've seen look good, but it's too $$$ for my budget. I also have a copy of DxO Filmpack, which has some interesting looks.</p>

<p>Also, onOne software have some nifty freebie Lightroom Presets. The onOne defaults tend to be excessive, but offer some interesting starting points for developing your own presets. </p>

[wader]

<p>Really appreciate your advice, Lex, and will be experimenting with those methods on some of these shots to see what looks best for each. Deriving a general method for processing groupings based on stylistic characteristics was foremost on my mind when posing this topic question, so trying out these ideas could contribute to that goal.</p>

<p>I like Replichrome primarily for outdoors shots, but some indoors captures that are less formal "moments in time" can also benefit from using the "film style" presets and a little tweaking, I'm noticing. I enjoy the dynamic range feel of a film photo, but feel that some of these digital shots actually benefit from the detail in a manner that contributes to the subjects "popping out" from the background without the need to also saturate colours, darken edges, vignette or other methods to any noticeable degree. But, I'm an amateur, so what do I know?<br /> <br />Interestingly, I once compared onOne to Nik tools (before Google bought them out) and decided on the Nik route primarily because of the fine control I had over how and where the effects could be applied in either Lightroom or Photoshop - much as you described for onOne, lots of interesting starting points for easy tweaking. But, they aren't presets in Lightroom so much as editing a separate export of your RAW image (e.g., TIFF) because Nik tools are external editors. I do like the Lightroom preset convenience (i.e., Replichrome was my first purchase in that regard and it's quite natural to use within LR), so will look into the free onOne presets to see if they might be a more convenient (and agreeable) route to try.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

Regarding onOne software such as Perfect Effects,

it's very resource intensive and needs a good GPU

to perform effectively. My basic motherboard

graphics aren't good enough. Reportedly they're improving the speed with the next upgrade.

 

But their Lightroom presets work like any

presets, no problems.

[jordan2240]

<p>Wade,</p>

<p>Quick suggestion. Take a look at the weekly post-processing challenge thread in this forum. They are always looking for people to post 'challenges' there. Lately it's been the same people posting just for fun, so I'm certain they would welcome a real challenge. If I were you, I'd go into the most recent challenge thread and tell them you'd like to post next week's challenge, which is typically done on Sunday. All you need to do is post the same link you did here plus a smaller 700 ppi-wide version so it displays in thread. I can give you more info if you need it, as can anyone who participates in the thread.</p>

<p>I guarantee you you'll get some really good results with some explanations of how they were done. I tend to agree with you that less is more. The first thing I'd do with your photo is add a levels adjustment layer, make no changes to the levels, and blend it as an 'overlay' vice normal, and see how that goes. And I'd leave that head in. Kind of adds some interest to the shot.<br>

</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>In fact, you should probably clone the head and put it on his other shoulder. </p>

<p>head 1 - 'Yes, marry her, she's lovely and you'll never have to wash your skivvies again.' </p>

<p>head 2 - "No, don't do it you fool, she's not who you think she is. This'll be the closest you ever come to a smile again." <br>

;)</p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>you might want to download a trial version of Alien Skin Exposure...they have a variety of filters including vintage that are imo better than NIK Color Efex...Silver Efex may be the best software for converting to black and white but Alien Skin has more options...http://www.alienskin.com/exposure-7-is-here/</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Whenever I think about adding some effect to a wedding photo, I force myself to imagine how the proposed effect will be perceived by the couple and their family 30 years from now. Will they wish that the photographer had just given them a nice straight shot, or one with efx that are well accepted in this genre (eg, romantic soft focus, light vignette, etc.). For example,would they like the wedding pix of their grandparents modified to look like they were shot in the 1800's when they were really shot in the 1960's, or would they find this confusing and unnecessary. Would they feel that the keyhole vignette effect that they run across in their parents' wedding album was kitschy or an interesting true vestige of that era? etc.</p>

<p>Anyway, unless the couple specifically asks for something else, my vote is almost always for minimal / traditional post processing. The attached took me well under a couple of min to do using LR and Tiffen DFX.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>PS - I was too lazy to do something with the disembodied head that's between them. I'd certainly make it less prominent, and maybe eve remove it completely.</p><div></div>

[wader]

<p>Bill: Less is more is my general style overall, but some shots will lend well to an effect to enhance a more obvious mood - this one isn't one of those, I feel. Adding the layer is a good idea, thanks. Adding the head got me laughing out loud, which really doesn't happen often, so good job.<br>

<br />Tom: You articulated a point which I was considering quite well, I feel - even though I don't know what's the latest style for wedding photos and such, looking at the many "Lightroom Wedding Presets" offerings out there, it seems obvious what's prevalent. And, I don't need to emulate those looks just for the sake of what's a current trend. I was also trying out various glows/skin smoothings and mattes/framings yesterday with the Nik tools and your version is definitely helped by toning down the yellow.</p>

<p>Is skin smoothing a good thing for most shots, btw? Neither person has obvious lines/creases/marks that would be missed if anyone familiar saw a smoothed skin look, I figure, but I am not aware if this is generally considered a good practice for these types of events.</p>

<p>Thanks for all this very helpful feedback and new ideas, everyone.</p>

<p>- Wade</p>

[wader]

<p>David: I've seen Alien Skin before, thanks - between Nik and Replichrome (plus, some free presets I downloaded from Lex's reference) I hopefully can get a decently subtle, vintage look for appropriate shots. Still, I just installed the Trial of Exposure 7 and will give it a workout - appreciate the reference.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I'm always finding unexpected results twiddling around on jpegs randomly posted online in ACR such as your wedding shot, Wade.</p>

<p>I was going for an old vintage look like Lex's but from what I've seen applied on other similar shots on pro wedding sites and stumbled upon the results below. Then I checked Lex's Warhol Polaroid link and couldn't believe how close I got.</p>

<p>Jpeg color tables are just weird and react unexpectedly to white balance, split tone and HSL combinations that all of sudden get rid of skin blemishes. Adding green in the WB Tint slider made the bride's skin go creamy, smooth alabaster. Wasn't expecting that. </p>

<p>This treatment may not be to your liking, but I was glad I gave it go because I learned and got something I wasn't expecting. I embedded the ACR EXIF edits which has a Strong Contrast curve and the rest is Saturation, Vibrance, WB, HSL and Split Tone adjusts all done in 16bit ProPhotoRGB in ACR. No Photoshop. I don't think these edits will transfer well to Raw if that was the original format captured in. </p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Hi Wade - a couple of thoughts:</p>

<p>1) re: <em>"...looking at the many "Lightroom Wedding Presets" offerings out there, it seems obvious what's prevalent..."</em> <br>

I would be a bit hesitant to make such an inference. The goal of the people selling / offering the presets and actions is to sell <strong>more</strong> presets and actions, LOL. The goal of wedding photographers is to make the clients happy. These two goals may be related but definitely are not the same.</p>

<p>2) re: <em>"...Is skin smoothing a good thing for most shots, btw?..."</em> <br>

One absolutely doesn't want to make the subjects' skin look plastic. However, if you are trying to give the image a soft romantic look, you've got to fight the tendency of digital images (especially after enthusiastic processing) to have very strong microcontrast. You still want the image to be sharp (ie, the width of an edge), but you don't want the change in brightness or color as you go across an edge to be quite so large. One easy way to do this is to put a smoothed version of the skin on top of the sharp version, but set it to 70-90% opacity, so that a little of the underlying sharp image shows through, but the contrast across each edge or dot is reduced. This is what I did.</p>

<p>HTH,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>@Tim - A good observation. Interesting, as always.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Wade, this may or may not be of any interest but this link <br>

http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-use-lab-color-in-photoshop-to-add-punch-to-your-images/ </p>

<p>shows how to use LAB technique to raise the color level without (supposedly) changing the color. I removed the head in the middle. My Photoshop version is pretty old (6.0) but this still worked. </p><div></div>