mbbrown

<p>Nadine, found my image on his site. I wrote him a VERY strongly worded, though professional, letter requesting its immediate removal from his site. Told him next step would be pursuing it through the legal system.</p>

<p>Here is a screenshot:</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Did not see any of mine...perhaps he's been "tipped-off" and has removed images that aren't his? In any case, thanks Nadine for the heads-up. This is sadly not the first time this has happened to me. </p>

<p>Became...</p><div></div>

<p>Alright, I'll go...</p>

<p>My entry, "Secret Garden" is actually a secret garden of sorts in the area where I shoot. It's known as a quick-stop spot between the ceremony and reception, depending on what part of town the wedding is in. It's a privately owned garden and the bride wanted some special pics of just her and her new husband done there. But it was a cool, overcast October day, and the lush, green foliage and flowers were slowly heading south for the Winter.</p>

<p>What we shot and what the this shot ended-up becoming were two totally different things. I'm going to post the original RAW file (in JPEG convert) as I shot it...flat and zeroed, as I always do. I want to show how some images evolve and change to meet the needs of the client. I knew, from having met with the client she wanted a very deep, colorful image of her and her new husband at this garden. But, the changing landscape was totally different than her vision. What I did was have her and I both select an image based on the pose and little else. I took close to 25-30 good shots at this location, but this image, I felt, needed some TLC.<br>

I began by doing something I rarely do and that's change the orientation. What began as a vertical ended-up as a not only a horizontal, but a pseudo-panoramic. I explained it was a special circumstance and, should she want prints, she could likely get nothing larger than a 6x9 as the crop removed a lot of resolution.<br>

In addition to that, the image went into total make-over mode. I totally cropped out the sky to "enclose" the couple within the scene. I further enhanced this by cloning some of the surrounding foliage to add more elemental opacity...a "wall" of trees. I removed any and every trace of any man-made elements from it, removed some lens flare you can see close to their feet as it was a backlit shot, cloned more flowers, trees, foliage...really filled it in. I then cleaned certain aspects of it; removed his hand from her back, sharpened here, softened there...finally, I saturated the ever-loving bejeezus out of the earthy tones. Especially the greens, obviously. I boosted the black to give it depth and clarity, gave it a 25% gaussian blur to add an element of heat and mist; a trait of Summer weather rather than Fall weather, and I think I ended with a vignette.<br>

It became my project of the week around that time because I knew it had potential. Now, obviously, I don't alter all my wedding images to that extent, but this one became kind of a visual icon that we use to this day with our advertising. It's become synonymous with the look and feel of our company.<br>

In the end, I had 3 printed on metallic paper, professionally matted and framed, and gave them to the B&G and both sets of parents. The response to this image has been fantastic and I'm happy to have had the pleasure of sharing it with all of you.<br>

I'm retiring from professional wedding photography at the end of the year (27 years is long enough) and will pursue other interests in photography, but what a great experience this has been. You should all be proud of your work. Wedding photogs are a special breed. I hope this image inspires you to look beyond the original and give your clients something different. Keep professional wedding photography in the realm of the professionals and the up-and-coming professionals.</p>

<p>Anyway, here it is in its original, flat, zeroed, uncropped form:</p>

<div></div>

<p>Secret Garden</p><div></div>

<p>We seem to have a kind of bird theme going here!</p>

<p>Happy Wednesday, all! Awesome shots so far, as always! This is a pelican at a wildlife rehabilitation outpost in Jupiter, FL, US. Shot with my D700 and 85mm f/1.4D lens through a hole in the fence. Minimal PP done in Adobe Lr.</p><div></div>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Michael, Not for nuthin, but has anyone else noticed that Jellybean Man's head appears to be on backwards?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I believe that's what they call "artistic license." :-D</p>

<p>Jellybean Man; Dayton Art Institute, Dayton, Ohio. US. As usual, D700, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G. My usual M.O.</p>

<p>Happy Wednesday to you all! Awesome shots as always! Very inspiring!</p>

<p>Michael</p><div></div>

<p>Good Wednesday to all of you!</p>

<p>Just a natural light pic of my Daughter taken Saturday here in Florida. D700, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G. Overcast evening light.</p><div></div>

<p>Static scene taking at the United States Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. I'd consider it a still life, but I love the "movement" in it.</p>

<p>D700, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G</p><div></div>

<p>So many awesome images! I love this thread. Very inspiring!</p>

<p>Posting more low-light test images. Sorry; I just got the D700 and the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G in March and am amazed at the low-light prowess!</p>

<p>My dog, King, on his bed thinking about whatever dogs think about.</p>

<p>Happy Wednesday to all of you!</p><div></div>

<p>Another of my son at Jupiter Beach in Jupiter, Florida, USA. This is what Autumn looks like around here! Some awesome shots this week!</p><div></div>

<p>First day with the new D700 back in February. Went to the Dayton Art Institute in Dayton, Ohio and did some low light tests. I usually photograph living subjects, but I've always liked this image. Taken with D700, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G. Great thread, great pics so far! Thanks!</p><div></div>

<p>First day with the new D700 back in February. Went to the Dayton Art Institute in Dayton, Ohio and did some low light tests. I usually photograph living subjects, but I've always liked this image. Great thread, great pics so far! Thanks!</p>

<p>My first Wednesday Nikon Pic post! My son on Jupiter Beach, Jupiter, Florida. Nikon D700, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G</p><div></div>

<p>Bride wanted "glamorous." Shot with Nikon D700, 50mm f/1.4G, reflector fill.</p><div></div>

<p>I wanted to clarify that we do not produce any tangibles we incur costs on until the balance is paid. As I said, we take a non-refundable $500 deposit up front, which is a variable percentage based on chosen package. We do not require the remaining balance paid until within 14 days after the wedding. In that time, no tangibles have been produced; prints, albums, etc...</p>

<p>The delivery of products is also clearly outlined in our contract. But, if a client defaults, all we are out is the time we spent at the wedding and some chair time sitting at the computer doing post production.</p>

<p>Our contract guarantees a service will be provided in exchange for payment. Of course, we like our clients to be 100% happy with their images, and we do all we can to ensure that happens, but, again, our contract is a contract to<strong> <em>provide a service</em> </strong> . There is no mention of "you can pay if you like your images." When you do that, you're walking a slippery slope. Trust me; give them an inch and they'll take a mile.</p>

<p>I have a similar set-up in my contract. I take a $500 deposit to book, then the balance isn't due until 14 days after the wedding regardless of the package or products chosen. This is spelled out very clearly in our contract and it is gone-over verbally at the pre-wedding consult.</p>

<p>We allow 14 days because most couples honeymoon for at least a week, and, it allows us our usual 7-10 day turn-around on post production. This, of course, doesn't include album design and production. That is covered separately in the contract.</p>

<p>We basically hold the images hostage until the balance is paid. Additionally, we apply a 10% penalty for unpaid balances beyond the 14 day due date.</p>

<p>We've never had an issue. Luck? Maybe. But I also credit it to very clear communication between both parties and very clear and understood expectations.</p>

<p>This is a business, after all. And must be treated as such. Stick to your guns.</p>

<p>OK, I know I said no PS mojo, but I couldn't resist. I just wanted to see how much detail could be recovered from her eyes, as well as what a general sharpening might do for the focus.</p>

<p>It don't know if this is an improvement, or what...</p><div></div>

<p>Well, your comments state the obvious; the bride is out of focus. It's a lively shot, though. I love the composition. I'm not wild about the blown highlights in the bouquet (as I'm sure David Schilling will agree), especially as the missed focus has placed them as the center of attention.</p>

<p>Otherwise, it's a bit contrasty for my tastes, but that's a subjective thing. I would have loved to seen some fill light in her eyes to at least minimize the raccoon effect. But, that said, I'm not sure how the use of flash might have changed the dynamic of this shot. It's a shot that appears to be unstaged, so split-second decisions would have had to have been made, specifically focus and lighting.</p>

<p>Personally, I almost never shoot at 1.4 unless it's a very specific and well-controlled situation; especially in close proximity in which you lose DOF at an even greater rate.</p>

<p>I won't do any PS mojo to it as I believe what makes this image both work on many levels and not work on many levels are contained within the confines of the opening and closing of the shutter...not the post production. Although you might be able to recover some highlights in and around the eyes with some minimal effort.</p>

<p>What I've learned is to never assume cloudy days will give you sufficient natural fill light.</p>

<p>All in all, I like it and I think I would have loved it with sharp focus on the bride. Her expression seems to be very happy and natural. Good on ya for capturing a moment!</p>

<p>Traditional B&G at Church after the ceremony. Not usually a fan of the static, posed shots, but I like this one. Twin Nikon SB-800's used with ambient incandescent in background. Did not color balance on purpose for effect; wanted the warmth of the church to shine.</p>

<p>Nikon D700, 50mm, f/5.6, 1/160th, ISO 1250</p><div></div>

<p>I'm not sure how you define "high end photographer", but I use Nikon (currently, my main body is the D700), Nikon lenses, Nikon flashguns...but, not too long ago, I used Canon. I shot many weddings with the 20D, which was a fantastic camera.</p>

<p>I switched because we had a flood in our house (water hose under upstairs bathroom sink broke and deluged the house with water for about 4 hours while we were away) and my Canon was destroyed. But, my wife's little Nikon D40 survived the flood. I sold the Canon equipment that wasn't damaged and rebuilt my system with Nikon stuff.</p>

<p>I guess my point is some of us are brand loyal for a variety of reasons, and some of us just kinda happen upon a system that works for us. In fact, my first 35mm camera was a Canon AE-1. In the middle of my illustrious career, I was shooting Mamiya MF. I finished-up my film career with a Nikon F-100.</p>

<p>In all honesty? I like the tones of Canon digital better, but I love the ultra high ISO capabilities of the D700. Although the steep tone curve is driving me insane. Anyway, I do have a blog related to my business, but I keep my business separate from this forum.</p>

<p>BTW, I also use a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G. AMAZING lens.</p>

<p>Equipment brand isn't nearly as relevant as knowing how to use it.</p>

<p>Nadine, I mourned my transition from film to digital. I absolutely love the character and tonal latitude film offers. But, like others, made the switch for a variety of reasons; convenience being one of them. And my tastes regarding final images probably have roots in my days spent in the B&W darkrooms of college; contrast test strips and the like...these things develop early on. (pun intended)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nadine, I'm not used to "the creamier and flatter contrast range of film" only in the sense of not having shot a wedding with film since 2003. Prior to that, I have a long history of working with film and appreciate the inherent quality and character it has that digital is just simply not able to replicate. A scanned negative will still be subject to post-production...just as a digital image would be...and I stand by my original assessment that the image initially seemed a little thin; a little milky.</p>

<p>My tweak was very subtle. In fact, I didn't even touch the clarity or saturation. That, I felt, was more than satisfactory. I agree 100% clarity, sat, contrast, luminance, etc...are more overused, generally speaking, than not. My feeling is these parameters are best used for correction rather than creative effect.</p>

<p>All that said, I really like the image. But, the optimization of the output is separate from the inherent character of the input, be it film or digital, in my opinion.</p>