welly_kiwi

<p>Hi, </p>

<p>Yes indeed I'm shooting in Raw, and like some of you guys I prefer to expose correctly then play around in ACR to get the desired effect. I was more wondering what everyone thinks of the trend right now, whether it's here to stay for a while, or a passing fad? Whether you like it/or not? I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I find it's so interesting hearing what other photographers like, since so often we all go with what the client wants (and of course to a large degree, we should do), but it's nice to hear a few personal opinions every now and then.</p>

<p>Nadine; I think you're onto what I'm talking about, it really is something that perhaps needs to be done on site rather than in ACR, as it can look a bit 'fudged' as David put it. </p>

<p>I do have some perfect images that show what I'm talking about but they're not mine so I don't think I'm allowed to post them.<br>

I've posted a couple of links here instead, I'd just like to preface them by saying I think these photos are absolutely wonderful, I'm not critiquing them in any way, I just think they illustrate the trend quite well.<br>

First link - Thuy + John - 3rd photo down, close up of the bride's face and shoulder (stunning!). <br>

<a href="http://jkhphoto.com/blog/?p=182">http://jkhphoto.com/blog/?p=182</a><br>

Second link - There's a few on this blog page that illustrate it, highly stylistically done.<br>

<a href="http://blog.lemonlimephoto.com/2009/10/28/susie-patrick-wedding/">http://blog.lemonlimephoto.com/2009/10/28/susie-patrick-wedding/</a><br>

I wondered briefly if 'over exposed' was the correct term since the shadows and blacks are often steadily in place, so I did a search on this website and lo and behold, Neil Ambrose talked about it in his Master Lesson <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo</a> (about 3/4s down the page). </p>

<p>Hope that clarified things a bit better. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi there everyone,</p>

<p>First of all I'm not entirely sure I picked the correct category, I didn't see one for exposures etc, so I just picked 'other', if an administrator wants to direct this to a different bread crumb trail, no worries.</p>

<p>I've been thinking about the current trend of over exposing photos in wedding shots to get that white dreamy look so popular right now. I'm a big fan but I've been seeing a lot of negative feedback about the technical aspect of it. Obviously when we over expose there is a potential for blow outs and a skew towards highlights. I can see both sides of the argument: on the one hand it is an artistic technique and thus technicalities shouldn't be as important, on the other hand, in ten years time when the trend has well and truly passed, will we look back and say that we ended giving out photos that were not correctly exposed (in the technical sense) and regret it?</p>

<p>I'd love to hear other peoples' thoughts on the above, I'm sure most of you will know what I'm talking about, but if I've been too vague or if you'd just like some examples, let me know and I'll post some links up. </p>

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

Wow I'm astounded by the number of responses, thank you for your input and valuble feedback. </p>

<p>I completely agree with Danny Wong that Crumpler bags are victims of their own success, I do love them to pieces, but they can't help but be known as a camera bag around the world. </p>

<p>I really like the idea of putting Domke inserts into old bags, but I'm still thinking of it as the back up strategy, as I like the idea that a bag might be designed from scratch to withstand impact. </p>

<p>For those who asked what the point was since when I bring the camera out everyone would know; I often travel through shady parts of town to get to a secluded area for shooting, so I may wait until the coast is clear to take the camera out, hence why I want to look pretty casual getting there. I do agree that if someone sets out to mug you then there's not a lot one can do, but I figure it can't hurt to mitigate the risk and bring the odds a little in your favour :)</p>

<p>Peter N, thanks for the recommendation on the Nikwax product, I haven't seen it over here but I'm about to go searching online, because the product I use leaves everything stiff and honestly isn't particularly waterproof.</p>

<p>AJ, ha, that's exactly how I feel with my crumpler bags right now.<br>

To everyone who gave a favorite bag recommendation, I've listed them all and am about to embark on an online website hunt to check out what you're using, thanks so much, word of mouth recommendations are priceless for this kind of thing. </p>

<p>Adrian, I know what you mean about messenger bags being a bit painful after a full day of shooting, but I'm not keen on backpacks and it seems like messenger is the next best thing, maybe I'll have to rethink that. </p>

<p>Esa, those Marimekko bags are stunning, a little too stunning I think or I would pounce on one right now!</p>

<p>David Franzen, I agree, it's really only a matter of odds, it was the thread a couple of weeks ago about Bob getting robbed that got me thinking about ways to minimize the chances of it happening, but I certainly like your come-what-may approach. </p>

<p>On another note, it was really good to hear what you guys were saying about the canvas quality in the Domke bags, it's put me off buying one altogether, so thanks for the tip.</p>

<p>As far as how much gear I carry around, this bag would be to carry the two large dslrs, 3 lenses and some small accessories. My laptop and tripod etc go in a different bag. Well, actually the tripod sticks out the top of a separate bag, flat out refusing to even get halfway into it.</p>

<p>To everyone who mentioned diaper bags and lunch bags, it's a really interesting idea, my only thought is I was kind of hoping for a bag I could use at weddings as well. I know it's a hard balance to strike, but I'm leaning towards the bag inside a bag idea, maybe a good camera bag inside a diaper bag so I can take it out of the diaper bag for weddings? Has anyone else done that?<br>

Thanks again everyone for all your help.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi all, <br>

First off, I do hope this question hasn't already been asked; the search for 'camera bag' and various other forms of the phrase didn't seem to turn up the answer that I'm looking for so I thought I'd ask it myself.<br>

I'm moving on from my crumpler bags. Don't get me wrong, I love them dearly, and they've served me well. But they look like camera bags. I actually bought them after a lot of research on bags that don't look like camera bags, and they almost make it in that category, I can't put my finger on what it is but people do seem to realise straight away that they're carrying gear. <br>

So I'm after some recommendations. I've been looking at the National Geographic shoulder bag - <a href="http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-NG-2477-Shoulder/dp/B0017RVDI8/ref=pd_sim_p_4">http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-NG-2477-Shoulder/dp/B0017RVDI8/ref=pd_sim_p_4</a> and I think this has a shot of looking like a basic messenger bag, if I rough it up enough, but I'm worried about it's interior padding, has anyone used these before?<br>

I'm also looking at the <a href="http://www.tiffen.com/displayproduct.html?tablename=domke&itemnum=700-52D">http://www.tiffen.com/displayproduct.html?tablename=domke&itemnum=700-52D</a>, but a bigger version that would hold more equipment. <br>

What do you all think? Has anyone had a similar quest, or better yet, have any of you tried the above bags or ones you think fit the bill? I'd love to hear what you have to say.<br>

My reason for the camera-bag-in-disguise (if anyone is curious), is just that I do like to shoot in some shady locations from time to time, but once I get a camera bag I like to stick with it, so it needs to be able to be seen at weddings as well. <br>

Many thanks!</p>