Two more for now . . .

i love both these images 


the 2nd one though my eyes were drawn into her bossom and flowers and his vest because they seem like they are too blown out.

My question is, what is the trend for weddings concerning blown whites/no details and no details in blacks. I often see this from American and Canadian Photographers.
The result I see to this image #2 was done by an application filter like a diffuse glow.

It's a great idea, however, in layers, brushing back some details will help, especially her teeth which blends in the background.

Great expressions, fun, natural

I hear that a lot, however, no, it doesn't make sense.
And I'm not holding an argument, I want to learn from you folk who shoot a lot of weddings, it's that "Why" needs to be answered.

In these pictures, Ed opted for a soft focus by using 2.8, as far as I know, my 70-200 2.8 results are pretty good, I also used the 80-200, MY personal opinion is the lens does an awesome job, I like the natural look.
I do like results from diffuse glow, I find it needs to be lowered a lot in opacity, where details are, I find it needs to be erased from.

Take a look at my selective focus in Portraits, look at the back ground and the face, with the post above, there will be a not so exaggerated softness, however, the skin will be soft and the clothes. Obviously the background will be more so.

OK . . . So, this has sat here for a year without me commenting on the methods . . .

First, I do expose properly in the camera to retain detail in both the dress and the tux.  As much as I can anyway.  I don't like to find blown highlights when I unload my camera after a shoot:  Wedding or portrait.  However, I don't worry about it when I post process my images.  I have never had a bride say, "Wow!  You didn't take advantage of the full dymanic range of your camera!"  Wedding images are about perception and emotion not exposure and dynamic range

These were done with some of Kevin Kubota's actions.  I like these because they allow me to produce consistent results from image to image.  The actions used here include diffuse glow in them.  I apply them to layers and then adjust the opacity of the layer as needed.

Second, any softness was also the result of post processing.  The 80-200 produces sharp, sharp, images even at f2.8.  But, again people don't want to see every pore.  I love the out of focus backgrounds that I get.  Yes, I should have placed their profiles over a darker background, but I missed it!