Photo Arts Forum » Forum List » Weddings/Event » Two more for now . . .

Two more for now . . .

Moderator

Pro Critique

July 15, 2008, 04:14:02 PM

I have started to shoot almost all of my bride and groom portraits with my 80-200f2.8. I love the compression that it gives. As a plus, couples seem to relax more when I am that far away . . .

Attachments

This post contains 2 attachments, but as a guest you cannot view attachments. Signing up at PhotoArtsForum will allow you to view attachments and post your own messages. If you already are a member at PhotoArtsForum please login.

Logged

Ed Farmer
Mount Laurel, New Jersey

www.edfarmerphotography.com
www.photoartsforum.com

the_click_chick

Reply #1 - July 15, 2008, 05:11:47 PM

i love both these images Big Grin

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.

Logged

::a bad day behind a camera is better than a good day behind a desk::

Teqy1

Reply #2 - July 17, 2008, 04:40:07 PM

Quote from: the_click_chick on July 15, 2008, 05:11:47 PM

i love both these images Big Grin

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.

I didn't notice that so I had to look again. Big Grin

Logged

Mike Hodgson

Pro Critique

Reply #3 - October 08, 2008, 02:40:40 PM

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

Logged

Ginnypenny

Pro Critique

Reply #4 - October 08, 2008, 02:43:48 PM

I see this high contrast blown look a lot and I do like it. Although, I am so frightened by it. I have just worked so hard to learn exposure and not blow out wedding gowns that I am afraid to do it on purpose. Does that make sense?

Logged

Susie
www.charlesbarnardphotography.com
www.definitionimages.com

Mike Hodgson

Pro Critique

Reply #5 - October 08, 2008, 02:52:23 PM

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.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2008, 03:00:06 PM by Mike Hodgson »

Logged

Ginnypenny

Pro Critique

Reply #6 - October 08, 2008, 05:52:08 PM

It's a "special effect" rather than a tool used to soften skin or anything else. I think it's that "glowy" "pretty" "bright and happy we-just-got-married-and-it's-surreal" thing they are going for. I think it's more for mood than photographic correctness (the new "pc").
Brides like it. It's a touch like selective coloring, which is a novelty, but this is more about "feelings". Watch dream sequences in movies, the whites are usually blown and everything is soft... sorta the same effect.

I am not defending it, it's just a style some people like. I have to consciously un-restrain myself from rules to get good sellable photos. That's why I don't dare do it, I get too wrapped up in what is "right" and what my fellow photographer friends will think (it's not good for business sometimes).

Logged

Susie
www.charlesbarnardphotography.com
www.definitionimages.com

Top of Page