mbbrown

<p>Wow, congrats, Betty! :-) When are you due?</p>

<p>My wife had our first baby 2 days after we shot a wedding. She actually went into labor the day after. Ah, good times.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm kinda like David Eckmier; I'll have the tallest coffee I can get my hands on and often try to have something protein-heavy like an omlette...or, just a bunch of eggs and cheese. I'm not picky. If it's an early start, I'll go for a power bar. But, yeah, we keep a cooler in the back of the car and fill it every night before a wedding. Ice, water, snacks...a good one is beef jerky. String cheese, more power bars...</p>

<p>Last year, we had an outdoor wedding in July. LONG wedding. Had to be in the upper 90's. I didn't drink enough and that next day I felt like someone had sucked all the moisture outta me.</p>

<p>Good luck to ya, Betty! We have two babies (7 and 9) of our own and they're a blast!</p>

<p>I actually really like Elements. I have 6.0 for Mac and I find it really useful for quick edits and such. My main program is Lightroom. I can't imagine doing weddings without it. Very, very useful program.</p>

<p>I have Photoshop CS4, but, honestly, my wife uses it more than I do...mostly for album design.</p>

<p>((((((David))))))</p>

<p>That's a cyber-hug. :-)</p>

<p>I am looking at your image. Going to do some sleuthing and post a comment. I actually just shot a reception in a white tent, so it'll be interesting to participate in the discussion.</p>

<p>Thanks again for your comments!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Exactly, what's the point? If you truly care only about pleasing your clients and could care less what your peers think, then why would you submit the image for review/critique? -David S.<br /> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because I'm not trying to please anyone on this forum, David. This is not a competition...says it right there at the top. This is a conversation. A review/critique is not an offering of right or wrong. There are no absolutes involved in things that are subjective. And I've considered what has been offered in this thread. But consideration is not synonymous with agreement. Are you able to recognize the difference between trying to please a client with an image, and simply presenting the same image for review to peers? Just because I haven't altered this image to "meet with everyone's approval" doesn't mean I don't value every opinion expressed. We don't have to agree. I looked at your website and it's clear you and I have very different styles. Doesn't make one of us right and one of us wrong; we just likely serve a different clientele. But there seems to be an insistence on your part that successful images be entirely technically correct, lest they be deemed successful. Just my opinion. Make no mistake, however; I value your participation in this thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Perhaps people would be better served if we simply overlook technique altogether then everyone could post their "happy snaps" and feel all warm and fuzzy. -David S.<br /> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not into the warm and fuzzy, huh? That's too bad. Would you like a hug?</p>

<p>Betty, I couldn't have said it any better.</p>

<p>I'm surprised by the number of people who have had issue with the "orangeness" but are seemingly okay with what has become the norm in wedding photography these days...the oversaturation, overexposure, high contrast, overprocessed (in some cases). Many of our images are taken to exaggerate the conditions of a moment. This isn't a new concept. I can't even begin to imagine the low percentage of images I take that can even come close to "what the eye sees." We're not doing crime scene photography here, people. Anyone who steps in to the arena of wedding photography has to elevate their senses to a new level and be prepared to recreate an emotion, not just document the occasion.</p>

<p>I've been invoved with professional photographer organizations since 1982 when I joined-up with a well-established photographer. I was 15. My Dad would drive me to weddings until I got my license. I've sat through print critiques, entered contests, talked to the masters. In college, I've spent 20 times as long in the darkroom as I had the studio on one shot. I know what it's like to agonize over the tech specs of a print. And I know the crushing blow of having a mentor destroy you in an open critique. And, arguably, these are good things to have happen for the young and just starting out.</p>

<p>But, 26 years later, I consider myself "well established." And my attention has shifted entirely from pleasing my peers to pleasing my clients. My clients know enough about me and my style to know what to expect. I represent myself well enough to be able to produce images like this without having to explain the meaning behind it to justify the deviation from the status quo.</p>

<p>Finally, I keep thinking, about this image in particular, if your eyes really are doing battle with the windows in the background, and you're not feeling the emotion of the image, you might be one of those photographers who are caught up in the jungle of technical mish-mash.</p>

<p>I could enter this in a competition and would probably hear the same things; too orange, to dark, windows too bright, etc...and, at the same time, my B&G loved this image, it will go in their album and they'll cherish that night for many years to come. Beyond the success of that, what is the point?</p>

<p>Is this a classic example of "can't see the forest for the trees?" Good wedding photography is not always proper exposure, accurate color balance, ideal conditions. But it is about being able to understand and use those things to successfully dance around them to capture what Uncle Bob can't.</p>

<p>Just my opinion...might not be well-received, but...well, there ya go.</p>

<p>Let's see...a couple more quick comments...</p>

<p>In terms of camera placement, I was a shoulder-to-wall with a wall directly to my right. I was as far right as I could go. Moving to the other side (if we're talking in terms of window placement and/or subject profile) would have proved worse yet as the DJ set-up was in the far right corner of the room.</p>

<p>Soft focus was mentioned earlier...no soft focus enhancements were applied neither on-lens or post-event. I toyed a bit with some Ps stuff, but decided against it. This really is one of those images I defend unapologetically as-is. When I do post-wedding editing, I really do consider each image on its own merits. This is one, I feel, was 99.99% good right out of the camera. And those of you who fiddled with an image of mine of a bride from another wedding, in another thread, know I'm not a staunch purist who thumbs his nose at any Ps edits. But it was hard to do anything to this that I felt made it better. When I get home and back on my desktop (on my wife's MacBook now) I'll have another look at the raw file and conjure up a B&W as I also think it makes a great B&W image.</p>

<p>All comments are appreciated and considered!</p>

<p>Duly noted.</p>

<p>I think the word "natural" was used in reference to natural light. No artificial light used in this shot.</p>

<p>As I stated, I purposely used daylight color balance on this for effect. I never use auto white balance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just another quick note...</p>

<p>When I'm shooting a wedding, I try and balance my vision of what I'm trying to achive and how to get to that point using what I know. It's being both a technician and an artist at the same time...though I would contend any artist of any genre' needs to play both roles to be successful.</p>

<p>Specifically pertaining to this image, the sun was going down and I noticed it streaming through the windows behind them and knew I had a narrow window (pun intended) to get what I figured might be a really cool image. I snapped-off about 6 at different apertures, crops, orientations, and this one was clearly superior. In fact, I missed focus on two of the images because of the wide-open aperture and the swaying of the dancing. Then the sun fell behind the horizon and it was over.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how to comment on the theory of where the eye is drawn to. My feeling is if your eye isn't immediately drawn to the deep glance of this couple, then you're just not looking. I've seen the studies and I've listened to the Masters, but I strongly believe the success of an image is 99% content. (give or take) I agree this is warm and underexposed (though I much prefer the term "low key" in this instance.), but I'm okay with that. In fact, I made it so. I could have blasted my twin SB-800's in thier faces, everything else being the same, and I think the image would have failed. Miserably.</p>

<p>I try and go into every wedding remembering the vast difference between creation and documentation.</p>

<p>Lastly, I'm not really a big conest guy. I used to be, but that was a long time ago. I can't remember the last time I entered a contest. Too busy doing weddings. :-D</p>

<p>Props to those who recognize the rule of thirds! :-)</p>

<p>I agree, Anastasia, about the glare off the hand. I think it's an improvement to tone it down/out.</p>

<p>Gotta run! Thank again, all!</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments, all. I'm on business in Florida and just spent 12 hours on a motorcycle, so I'll keep this short.</p>

<p>The color temp and density of this image were purposeful, though the crop I was on the fence with in terms of which way to go with it. I 100% agree with Betty's comment about showing other people in the room "blissfully unaware" as they were, as were the B&G; this was a very romantic wedding.</p>

<p>I shot this (on purpose) with a daylight color balance to recreate the warmth in the room. Reception was held in a lodge kind of setting with lots of wood and stone, lots of candles...and I wanted that warm, low-key feel to this image. I think I wrote this in another thread, but it's worth repeating; a bride once said to me of a similar shot, "It looks like how it felt in there that night." And, without getting philosophical, I will say it stuck with me as a large part of my duty to recreate not just visual documentation, but emotion and atmosphere and feeling and mood. The aperture of 1.4 was also on purpose as I wanted them as isolated as possible to add to the mood.</p>

<p>This was one of many first dance shots of this couple. Some were shot with flash and, in comparison, they don't stand-up to this image. I've learned being more daring with your technique often has good results. I agree that it's very warm, but I'm very good with the result. I've cooled it off and lightened it up and it just loses that certain something.</p>

<p>Finally, I agree it makes a wonderful B&W, and that might serve as a "happy place" for those not happy with the orange-ness. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for participating!</p>

<p>And lastly...</p>

<p>This one is my final attempt. B&G already have images. Delivered both the original (a bit cleaned-up) and the B&W I offered somewhere mid-way in this thread.</p>

<p>But I like toying around in Lr and Ps and came up with a softer, desat version. I kinda like it...kinda on the fence with it. But, it's fun to play and you can never get too much Lr and Ps time.</p><div></div>

<p>Charles, you are correct, though I haven't much to add other than to say my level of intervention both during set-up and post-event is decided upon a case-by-case basis. Putting aside my contention the expression on this bride is natural based on my all-day interactions with her, and seeing her, as I stated "camera unaware" and still seeing a very similar expression, I felt like any additional tweaking of her expression would have produced an uncharacteristic look. That said, I agree the modification image produced a more relaxed expression.</p>

<p>The issue is where do all these tweaks cross from aesthetic modifications to character modifications. It's a thin line. This bride hired me based on my work and I feel like strong mods are uncharacteristic of my style and would be a misrepresentation of my style.</p>

<p>I'm happy to do mods like that, and I do more for, say...senior portraits, engagement portraits and the like. But I also don't want to risk setting a precedent for heavily modifying a wedding that consisted of over 500 images.</p>

<p>If I could, I'd retract the comment, "I do not attempt to control such things." as it was too broad a statement for something that is so situational. What I should have said was "I do not attempt to alter what I perceive to be a natural expression during set-up." Post-event? As we've seen, there are a bazillion different takes on any one image. None of them necessarily right or wrong, but I do need to be true to the photographer hired by this bride and deliver to her what is expected and what is, to the best of my abilities, a true portrayal of her on her wedding day.</p>

<p>I agree. If a bride has contacted us via our website's contact form, there is a clear interest on her part to book with us. Our website contains sufficient information about us, our prices, plenty of images to look through. We always respond quickly. We try and respond no more than 2 hours after a contact form has come in, and in most cases, it's less...unless we're at a wedding, or it comes in at night. The contact we make back to the bride is always personalized; never a form letter, and an attempt a meeting in person is made.</p>

<p>What we've found is we book nearly every B&G we meet in person. I can only think of a couple in the last few years we've met with who didn't go with us. And it happens. You're not going to get every job. But good people skills, good customer service skills are paramount. Show up at a meeting ready to sell. Unless you're going into a meeting with 110%, don't go.</p>

<p>We've also booked a large amount of weddings without meetings. I credit that to our website, the quality of our work, the simplicity of our pricing structure and, again, our personalized service. My wife is attached at the hip to her Blackberry and is able to field business calls and e-mails anywhere we happen to be. So accessibility is a key factor.</p>

<p>We're slowly getting on board with Facebook, though, as Betty pointed out, I won't look at it as a sales tool so much as a networking/exposure tool.</p>

<p>Lastly, you know you're doing well when you get daily calls and e-mails from wedding resource vendors, advertising vendors, search engine placement vendors, wedding planners and people wanting to "put you at the top" (for a small fee, of course). My take on these is to look carefully at what they offer. Some let you buy leads, some make you subscribe and some, in my opinion, don't offer much of anything for what they want to charge. Do your homework.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It's certainly possible to deemphasize the lines under the eyes and around the mouth and make the catchlights a little larger, and still have the subject say, "That's the real me." Hard to do convincingly, but an excellent skill to have." -Charles Heckel</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the interest of taking into consideration the comments of my peers, I've prepared a quick mock-up of just such a suggestion, cropped a bit tighter for viewing. To me, it looks a little unnatural. Granted, I went beyond subtle, but the idea is represented, I feel.</p><div></div>

<p>Charles, I won't continue to argue the point that the smile on this bride in particular, in this shot in particular, is the same smile she had through the entire wedding, including the reception when she was much more relaxed, engaged and mostly camera-unaware. I find it odd you label me a "candid shooter" and not a "portraitist" based on one image, and one comment. Of course I offer verbal ques to tweak a smile if I feel it's forced or unnatural. But what I do not do is attempt to change a person's natural smile to suit an image. This was her natural smile. This is what I don't attempt to change or control.</p>

<p>My goal with any bride at any wedding is to capture them at their best, their most natural and most representative of their true self. My intervention on any bride's smile is limited to drawing-out a natural expression, creating a relaxed atmosphere and taking several images of each set-up to get the best representation of mood.</p>

<p>I do a very healthy Senior Portrait business, as well as countless bridal and engagement sessions (despite not being a "portraitist") and apply these same principles to those, as well. Although I do take a bit more time to tweak the set-up as much as possible.</p>

<p>I have now said all I will say on the subject of her smile. I find it incredibly judgmental for anyone to critique that. It was not solicited, nor is it in any way helpful, post-event. She is a client of mine and I proudly defend her unique look as I would any of my clients. Additionally, I feel good about how she was represented in all of her wedding images; I feel like I captured her mood and spirit, and that is what a true "portraitist" does.</p>

<p>Gee, I almost feel like I should post transcripts from college where I obtained a degree in Photographic Science with a Major in Portraiture.</p>

<p>Haha! M M! What sad corner of the world do you live in where a big smile is frowned upon?</p>

<p>Just kidding.</p>

<p>But, seriously...this was her real, natural smile. I do not attempt to control such things.</p>

<p>I don't know why that comment made me giggle. :-D</p>

<p>I was happy to do it! I have always enjoyed and repected the opinions of my peers.</p>

<p>Although I do think the "kinda where I was headed originally" version was best. <snicker></p>

<p>But, if not for the inspiration and ideas...might not have gotten there as easily.</p>

<p>Let me clarify the "too much emphasis on style" comment I made.</p>

<p>I'm not saying no emphasis should be placed on it, but successful wedding photogs have to balance defining a style with marketing and bookkeeping and client relations and post production and...I could go on and on.</p>

<p>Yes, we all need a distinctive style. But if we agonize over finding one, and then resting our laurels on said style, we will miss out on the 10,000 other things we need to be good at as successful wedding photographers.</p>

<p>It's a balancing act. I contend my style of doing business is part of my global style; how I interact with clients, how I answer e-mails and the phone. How I dress at a wedding. My professionalism. These things are all part of my style.</p>

<p>Believing that good photographic style without regard for business will make you successful is like thinking throwing a bullet hard enough will kill someone.</p>

<p>Having said that, I do believe one needs to be a good photographer first, then build on that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've had the same Zeiss Softar 1 for years now. Pulled it out for an engagement session after having it in storage for a while, and kinda thought..."hmmm, is this thing still relevant?"</p>

<p>And, likewise, I've been toying more and more with the Portraiture 2 plug-in from Imagenomic and, while I like it, I really reserve it for portraits intended to be portraits. I don't just apply it willy-nilly to every wedding image.</p>

<p>I even like the effects I get from tweaking the Gaussian Blur effect in PS.</p>

<p>This has all become a bigger issue when I got a Nikon D700 and the Nikkor 85mm 1.4. VERY unforgiving in terms of hiding imperfections in the skin.</p>

<p>How much, if any, do you use soft focus and/or skin smoothing in an average wedding?</p>

<p>But, wow...do I ever still love that Zeiss Softar.</p>

<p>That's a tough one; so many to choose from.</p>

<p>When I was a gopher for another photog back in the early 80's, he set me up with a second camera in the balcony of this huge, old Catholic church. And it was a full mass...400-450 people. The ceremony went on for over 2 hours...close to 2 and a half. He had us wearing these horrible tan and brown tuxedos, it was the middle of July and it was probably about 120 degree in the balcony.</p>

<p>Another gopher I was working with went during the ceremony to Wendy's and got food for us and we ate in the balcony. Well, food and heat don't mix and I ended-up nearly fainting...fell backwards into the wall and stabbed my back on a nail. By then, I had taken off my tux jacket and was able to put it back on to hide the huge blood stain on my back. I felt like death warmed-over.</p>

<p>Now the heat doesn't bother me.</p>

<p>Good ones? Most of them are good. I did one a couple days after Christmas last year and the Bride's Father gave me a $250 tip. That was a happy time.</p>

<p>This is great, all these different opinions and visions. I love seeing how our styles differ, but not seeing a right-or-wrong viewpoint. I liked all the versions posted of this image, though some would be uncharacteristic of my style.</p>

<p>The first version, at the top, I still think is flat, but I'm still drawn to it. It has such an odd quality to it. I like my final version of the B&W (and thank the posters for inspiration), and will be showing that, as well as the color version, to the bride.</p>

<p>I cropped in a little myself, but liked the sea of chairs as a b/g frame, so I left enough to still get the effect.</p>

<p>But I will say that it's easy to go overboard with an image. The original version is often your best version.</p>

<p>I still do love it.</p>

<p>And now I love it even more because I'm done with it.</p>

<p>Again, thanks to those who responded!</p>