kim long- cincinnati, ohio

The thing is, there is no one answer to this. The most flattering poses and lighting will depend on the person's bone structure, height, where they carry that "extra weight", etc.

With most of these companies, you have control over sizes and color, right? In other words, you don't have to have every image available in every size or in the customer's choice of b&w, sepia or color, right?

My two cents re: marketing strategy.

 

We bought a beautiful canvas print from our wedding but it was not a closeup and I'd never have considered that. I realize I risk stepping on toes here- so disclaimer: this is my opinion only- but the very idea of a huge bridal portrait hanging in my home is way too conspicuously vain to me. An acquaintance of mine once hosted one of those home interior parties, and I remember three portraits from her wedding graced her fireplace- an enormous (at least 24") matted canvas print of herself, flanked by two much smaller (maybe 8x10") matted prints, one of her and her husband, and one of her and her parents. I was not the only one whose impression was, "My, isn't she full of herself?" :-/ This incident was not far from my mind when we were ordering prints from our own wedding, so there you go. My husband and I also felt that a large wall print of a close-up of the two of us would be interesting for only so long after the wedding. We ended up ordering a large canvas print of us in a water garden, where the water garden is prominently featured. It's still a very nice wedding portrait of the two of us, but it's just as much a lovely landscape. It has tastefully stood the test of time in the walls of the homes we've occupied since our wedding, and right now is displayed on an easel in the master bedroom (what happened to its original frame is a sad story involving a hyper five-year-old and a kickball that shouldn't have been in the house). >:-(

 

I'm not saying everyone will feel the same as we do, but just some points to consider. I think you can make some good arguments for certain images being more "timeless" and therefore worth the investment in a lovely canvas print.<div></div>

You've already gotten a lot of great advice, here. I'll just second the suggestion of marketing more to areas like Ft. Wayne, Lima, Findlay, Van Wert (well, I'm sure you're definitely marketing there), etc. I grew up in NW Ohio and if I were you, I wouldn't want to be stuck shooting too many weddings in the "villages" anyway. Of course there are exceptions to the stereotype, but they have a reputation for ridiculously large, obnoxious wedding parties who leave you waiting two-three hours between the ceremony and the reception while they get toasted bar hopping. :-P

 

I agree with the suggestions to overhaul the website- your work is very nice and the website as it is now does not represent it justly. And besides the layout of the bio page, I'd trim it down, too. Your milelage may vary, of course, but it's just my feeling that it's maybe a little too personal. But hey, that could work to your advantage too, I suppose. Some people might be turned off by it as being less professional, others might really be turned on by the friendly and personable impression it makes.

 

My sister still lives in Putnam County and has many friends in the age range for first marriages. If she ever has any referrals, I'll tell her to pass along your name.

 

Best wishes

Kim

Gary, I don't think it's a matter of it being a bad photo. I think there are times when cutouts work, and I think your photo is an example of such an instance. I suspect the lack of attention might be due to what many regard as a cliche style (kind of the Anne Geddes thing). It doesn't mean it's bad, it's just not necessarily going to be stand out or be especially interesting to many beyond those interested in the subject. I'm fully aware the same could be said for many of my portraits, too. I'm not above the occasional gimmick myself, especially when it sells. :-D

I'm just getting started, so I can't claim to be a fantastic established pro, but I do enjoy photographing babies and children and so far have been encouraged by the appreciation people have shown for my work. Not a lot of variety to my portfolio yet, but you're welcome to browse my <a href=http://www.photo.net/photos/Kim%20Long>photo.net portfolio</a> or my <a href=http://www.kimlongphotography.com/Gallery/Littleones/>website gallery</a>.<div></div>

Paige, I am in the same boat. The nice thing about digital is that it provides us this latitude. I think your "good shots" are darn good considering her age. You'd never guess she wasn't a perfectly willing and cooperative model. As for the softness, as you're working on perfecting your technique to get the eyes in sharp focus, for shots where they are just a little soft, you can always apply a quick, light unsharp masking of the eyes in Photoshop:<div></div>

http://www.findlayinn.com/

 

It's a three-story atrium, and it's pictured on the front page of the website.

I debated posting this in the wedding forum, but this question has

more to do with specific equipment.

 

I shoot with a Nikon D70 (two of them, actually), and SB600

speedlight, and have the following lenses:

 

18-70mm kit lens

70-300mm f/4-5.6

85mm f/1.4

50mm f/1.4

 

I've been wanting to add to my cache a good wide-angle lens suitable

for indoor and available-light use, and I know I'll take advantage of

it at this particular site. Of course I'm lusting after the 28mm

f/1.4D but I'm afraid I won't use it often enough to justify the

expense. I'm thinking of getting the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. What do you

think? Is it a decent lens? Do you have better suggestions? I looked

into renting the Nikon 28mm but can't find anyone around here who has

it available to rent.

If you're willing to go down to Brooklyn, the Botanical Gardens and Prospect Park are gorgeous.

I'm based in Cincinnati and Indianapolis is definitely within a reasonable distance. My website is linked in my profile if she's interested. I have a form she can submit for more information and I'll be happy to discuss options with her. :-D

Looking in the mirror is a good one, if you have one you can use for the shoot. Experiment with varying depths of field with her looking at her reflection in the mirror.

If I were to salvage this one, I agree with converting it to a monochrome. I'd also experiment a little with cropping, blurring and curve adjustments to make it more visually engaging. Of course, you run the risk of crossing that delicate line of "too much Photoshop". This was my quick attempt, and indeed, I may have crossed that line... but with a little more time, you could probably do better. Of course there's the legitimate question of how much time you want to spend on this shot... that's up to you.<div></div>

When processing digital, unsharp masking does a lot to affect the look you're going for.

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/unsharp-mask.htm

In addition to the great advice already given, I would encourage you to get some tight close-up shots of the child's face as well. Perhaps even an "expression composite". The essence of the child at that age can be documented so effectively in facial expressions. I find that a rapid-fire (or close to it) approach works splendidly for this. You sift through your close-ups and find some adorable expressions you could have missed in a split second.

I completely agree that if you wish to grow your business to a point where you employ other photographers (not just assistants), using your name limits you. If that's not your plan, though, I prefer the simplicity and sophistication of Your Name Photography/ Portraits/ Weddings whatever you choose to use to indicate your specialty. Why? Well, for one thing, coming up with an original business name in a ubiquitous field such as this is really difficult. There are few decent ones that aren't already in common use. Trying to come up with something original often leads to names that sound exactly so- like someone was trying too hard to come up with something original. The line between what is catchy and what is tacky is awfully thin. You want your name to convey unambiguously what you do, but you also want it to be something people can remember. Something that grabs attention is an understandable desire, too, but I've seen sooo many instances where good taste is sacrificed in the interest of grabbing attention. But keep in mind that this is coming from a language and onomastics snob who won't- unless she absolutely must*- do business at a place that uses a corny, contrived or otherwise ignorant-looking name. Seriously, I'm just that bugged by it. Substitute a 'k' for a 'c', pluralize with a 'z', go over-the-top with a cheesy pun or alliteration, and I'm just going to keep driving. Oh! And so help me, if I see a greengrocer's apostrophe, I may stop driving long enough to throw an egg at the signage (kidding of course, but man does that get under my skin).

 

*I shop at Once Upon a Child (children's consignment boutique). I can't help it. The bargains are too tempting to pass on, even if the name of the joint makes my skin crawl. It's about as catchy as calling it Pedophile Paradise.

I agree that detail shots become more interesting when you utilize a shallow DoF.<div></div>

Well, my first wedding wasn't until this past September, so I'm very very green. I think my best shots thus far have actually been detail shots, but for this thread, I'll stick to actual photos of the people getting hitched. :-P<div></div>

P.S. Anyone else feel kind of bad for the kind neighbor who took the photo for her so she would be able to send them out in her Christmas cards? "It isn't the best photo..."

 

Um, no, it's not, but gee. There's gratitude for you. Neighborly of her to say such a thing to the press. :-P

"Personally I find nothing aesthetically pleasing in a pregnant woman and can't imagine why anyone would want a photograph of themselves in that condition."

 

Well, you're certainly entitled to your own sense of aesthetics. I can't take issue with your distaste the pregnant form; it is certainly your perogative. I also agree that "...any business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone so long as they are not breaking the law."

 

What I *do* take issue with is the attitude that there is something inherently taboo or disgusting or wrong with an opposing aesthetic perspective; namely, that the pregnant form is beautiful, and that the experience of pregnancy is profound and certainly worthy of a photographic documentary. I think that's the issue here. It isn't that they were unwilling to take the portrait, it was the implication that the woman was some kind of deviant loony for wanting it in the first place. That said, while she was absolutely right to feel affronted, I think her handling of it was rather extreme.<div></div>

These are all very nice! Unless the wedding was very recent, though, I personally don't like the wedding photos on Christmas cards. I guess I prefer a more theme-appropriate or even a classic portrait. My sister was just telling me the other day how one of her acquaintances sent out Christmas cards with her wedding photo on it (they were married in August), and apparently it's been the subject of gossip among the hens in her social circle. "Geez, no one cares anymore! Move on, already!" However, this particular girl was a major bridezilla who had been particularly obnoxious in her self-absorption regarding her wedding for quite a long time, so I guess the Christmas card registered as an extension of her well-established bride-narcissism.

 

At any rate, from a photographer's standpoint, it's about what the client wants. :-D Some really pretty designs here.

"I think a preoccupation with originality of form is more or less a fruitless thing. A truly original person with a truly original mind will not be able to function in the old form, and will simply do something different." - Stanley Kubrick

 

I really love this quote. I think it's resonant to this discussion; however, in portrait photography I think there is only so much true originality you can reasonably aspire to achieve. Just because something has been done before (and as has been said, just about everything has been done before by someone, somewhere) doesn't mean there's no market for it. Nothing wrong with raising the bar for yourself personally and/or artistically. I'm all for it. Heck, I even market myself as "transcending the cliche"- but I recognize that in photography, 'edgy' and 'cliche' are pretty subjective terms.<div></div>

"I understand people want to do portraits like that, but we are a family portrait studio," he said. "There are more private portrait studios that do that photography."

 

I agree the studio has a *right* to make that call; however, such a call is... I'm suppressing the urge to use profanity because this kind of mentality makes me so angry I'm physically shaking. We are a culture of puritanical hypocrisy of the most vile degree. "Family Portrait Studio" indeed. What a lovely 'culture of life' we have when a pregnant belly is controversial. Shaking with ire, I tell you. Shaking.

My approach is very similar to what Michael said. However, I only take on clients who understand this approach and whose desires jibe with my style. There are plenty of folks out there whose preference is exactly for what you describe- a (technically sound, of course) "chest/shoulders on a row looking into the camera saying cheese" a la Zeltsman, and those folks might very well balk at anything straying from that formula. You need to know your clients and give them what they want. As has been mentioned, what is boring to you is not necessarily boring to the client. In my case, I have the luxury of my photography business not being my primary source of income, so I can be more discriminating about which clients and jobs I take on.<div></div>

Just a quick curve adjustment in Photoshop, and then adding a slight addition of some red and yellow in RGB mode.