kim long- cincinnati, ohio

Bodies: D200 & D70

 

I use an Op/Tech reporter strap and so far this works fine for me- I know a concern with this is the cameras banging together, but I haven't had any trouble with that. It's working well for me so far, anyway. I keep what I need "at hand" in my waist bag.

 

Lenses: 70-200 2.8 VR (indoor services and candids), 85 mm 1.4 (used frequently for portraits and candids), 50 mm 1.4 (used mostly in detail shots, though it's certainly multi-purpose), 17-55 2.8 (usually on one of my bodies for most of the day- very multi-purpose for me), 70-300 4-5.6 (my 'daylight-outdoors-only' lens- the extra reach is great for outdoor ceremonies and reception candids, and the bokeh is actually pretty nice)

 

Other equipment: SB800, lightsphere, reflector, many extra batteries (for both cameras and flash), battery chargers, 10GB of flash cards, and my tripod & step ladder I keep in the trunk of my vehicle and get out if and when necessary.

 

Backup: D70, SB600

 

Non-photography "gear": extra pair of contact lenses, glasses, mini first-aid kit, ibuprofen, Shout wipes or Tide-to-go pen, mini sewing kit, and my trusty Burt's Bees tinted lip balm. What? That's important to me, people! Keeps them from getting chapped, is minty fresh, and the color lasts and lasts. :-D

Dupe the original into a new layer, use the eyedropper to select the part of the skin tone you want to use as the "base" for evening out, then airbrush in color mode. Fade the new layer until it looks natural (that's my method of choice, anyway).

You might find some inspiration looking at bridal gown designers' websites. I think on The Knot website you can even search for gowns by silhouette, so you could narrow it to mermaid style ones. One of my brides had a pseudo-mermaid style gown with a very slight sweep train. It flared really gorgeously when she twirled around on the dance floor. It really depends on the gown, though, I imagine. Also the shape of the bride. An hourglass shape in a mermaid gown looks entirely different than a very slender, less curvy frame would, and different poses would be more or less flattering to each body type.<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

P.S. With the quality of work you provide, and the kind of reputation you've established, I personally believe you occupy a position that affords you some ability to *tell* your clients what is a good idea, if that makes any sense.

Frankly, I think it is fabulous. Quirky but very classy. Will it be broadly marketable? Probably not. But I predict it will appeal highly to a very specific sort of clientele, a niche market you have demonstrated to have a pretty good corner on already, so I think you should go for it!

Like any trend, it becomes tiresome when overdone (and inevitably, more and more widely poorly done). And, like any trend, you're going to find a lot of clients clamoring for it, even long after it has become passé. I personally only do it if specifically requested, or if I have reason to believe it will appeal to my client, and then only on very limited number of images where I deem it can enhance it. I'm not into employing that finish haphazardly with no rhyme or reason, as a pointless gimmick. I also find them more palatable when they are subtle, more like the aforementioned "hand-tinted" styles of yore.

 

None of the examples in this thread fall into this category, but one thing I personally cannot abide are those ubiquitous horrors of hideous, flat, muddy conversions (desaturations, basically) and a bright splotchy hob of colored bouquet or whatever random spot was chosen to erase from the duplicate desaturated layer. Gross, gross, gross.

I've been at pnet for a few years now, but am fairly new to the wedding forums, having shot my first wedding a little less than a year ago (September). I can't remember how I first found the site, though I imagine it was through a Google search for something that pointed me here.

Crap, crap crap. I SO didn't mean to post the large image file. So sorry, Mary.<div></div>

Yeah, it depends on how large a group, and what *kind* of group. Are we talking a large wedding party? A general group of attendants and guests? How formal? If it's a very large group, you definitely won't be able to have them all in a single file, and will want to keep your aperture large enough so everyone is in focus. Also, getting up on a ladder is helpful (or using whatever is available in your surroundings to get you back far enough and up high enough).<div></div>

I didn't find it very accurate at all. Or at the very least, as David said, it was misleading. According to its results, the average cost of a wedding in my native tiny rural midwestern farming community is significantly higher than the average cost of a wedding in the city of Cincinnati. There's just no way that's true. There's a skew happening somewhere in that sample.

Nope, because at this point, I'm always shooting solo. I agree with the notion that for me, that would just be another piece of equipment to worry about. Plus, the way I shoot, I can't imagine having time to dump anything. I've only shot a handful of weddings, though, so this is in my limited experience.

 

Haven't made the transition to Mac yet but intend to in the near future.

Oh, and be careful that she doesn't "tuck" her chin into her neck. That would be the most unflattering thing.

Exactly what Emily said. Also, have her look up, to elongate whatever jawline she has.

I meant to add that I liked Bob's treatment of the whites.

Maybe I'm just not experienced enough yet to "get it"... but I don't see what is wrong with the original image at all. I know skin tones are tricky and we're always striving to get them "right"- sometimes a too-cool, too-warm, green or yellow color cast looks awful... just plain wrong. Sometimes, though, it looks exactly like what my eye would have seen in that light, and in this case, I don't see it as looking unflattering at all. If I did anything at all to Stacy's original, it might be a slight dodging of the eyes to take a little of the blue out of the whites, and highlight the gorgeousness of those irises. But again, just a slight dodge and nothing too overdone.

 

Like I said, reading this thread made me feel kind of stupid, because I like the first image best, peachy or not. But there's also a very personal bias inside me, I think. I'm blonde with a very fair complexion, and was advised by a lot of people to work on a tan for my own wedding. While I did expose myself to enough sun to take me from pasty to pleasantly peach, I resisted all the advice to get myself to the point that my bridal gown looked radioactive. :-P

 

Not a criticism of the other PS efforts here; you obviously all are very talented and I'm pretty sure you've all been at this much longer than I have, so I think my input may be worth slightly less than two cents, but still. I still cast my meager vote for keeping the original...

Oh, I lurrve my 70-200 VR. I do end up soliciting neck rubs from my husband after using it for long periods.

David, you're right, of course, and that's reassuring to mind. I'm comfortable and confident with my gear. I guess I am just debating whether the extra reach (and of the long zoom is worth sacrificing the f stop of, say, my 85mm (or vice versa)... but I don't think I'll exactly be kicking myself either way, if that makes sense.