Shots as assistant at wedding.

[D-B-J]

my only comment is that number two, the dress is blown. nice shots though

 

[Robin Usagani]

It is doable to clone that but I dont think you should touch it. I rather find a better shot LOL. But if that is your last resort... sure!

 

[thebeatles]

my only comment is that number two, the dress is blown. nice shots though

Thanks! This is about as close as I can get to bringing it back, but the rest of the picture suffers a bit. Better?

It is doable to clone that but I dont think you should touch it. I rather find a better shot LOL. But if that is your last resort... sure!

I might just delete them at this point! I have been messing with them and can't quite get them to where I want them. I figured the "real" photographer has all the good shots anyways.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Well.. check out my signature. I might attempt it if you send me the high rez including your full name for credit .

 

[Petraio Prime]

The color is screwed up. Why?

If you did it on purpose, you did not use good judgement.

This is wedding photography, not rock-band photography.

Sigh.

Brides in 2010 tend to like that sort of thing... :greenpbl:

I dig Beatles

I thought you didn't like the Beatles.

 

[Petraio Prime]

For wedding photography, this look is what a lot of brides are going for when they look for a 'wedding photographer'. So, I don't think the color is screwed up, per se.

I will say that the first two photos are very aesthetically pleasing, but look like they were taken by two different photographers. The lighting is different, though I don't know the terms to explain it - maybe the first has more saturation from the grass and wood (?), but the second looks different stylistically.

Sometimes you have to be the one who resists the fads of the moment. Years and years from now, these will look....just silly. The less 'creative' you are the better. Be strong enough not to bend to fashions and fads...do the job with a view to 'lasting value'....

Go for content and emotional connection, not manipulation...

Take photographs that their great-grandchildren will appreciate...

Don't copy what everyone else is doing, be distinctive in the quality of your work...

 

[thebeatles]

For wedding photography, this look is what a lot of brides are going for when they look for a 'wedding photographer'. So, I don't think the color is screwed up, per se.

I will say that the first two photos are very aesthetically pleasing, but look like they were taken by two different photographers. The lighting is different, though I don't know the terms to explain it - maybe the first has more saturation from the grass and wood (?), but the second looks different stylistically.

Sometimes you have to be the one who resists the fads of the moment. Years and years from now, these will look....just silly. The less 'creative' you are the better. Be strong enough not to bend to fashions and fads...do the job with a view to 'lasting value'....

Go for content and emotional connection, not manipulation...

Take photographs that their great-grandchildren will appreciate...

Don't copy what everyone else is doing, be distinctive in the quality of your work...

Thanks for the wise words. I do have the originals which are not manipulated so much, kind of like the last shot I posted, and those are the shots they send to the bride. I posted my takes, (...colors all screwed up...) Because I subjectively enjoyed them. I do appreciate the wisdom. I will have to keep that in mind. Note to self: Keep It Simple Stupid!

 

[Petraio Prime]

For wedding photography, this look is what a lot of brides are going for when they look for a 'wedding photographer'. So, I don't think the color is screwed up, per se.

I will say that the first two photos are very aesthetically pleasing, but look like they were taken by two different photographers. The lighting is different, though I don't know the terms to explain it - maybe the first has more saturation from the grass and wood (?), but the second looks different stylistically.

Sometimes you have to be the one who resists the fads of the moment. Years and years from now, these will look....just silly. The less 'creative' you are the better. Be strong enough not to bend to fashions and fads...do the job with a view to 'lasting value'....

Go for content and emotional connection, not manipulation...

Take photographs that their great-grandchildren will appreciate...

Don't copy what everyone else is doing, be distinctive in the quality of your work...

Thanks for the wise words. I do have the originals which are not manipulated so much, kind of like the last shot I posted, and those are the shots they send to the bride. I posted my takes, (...colors all screwed up...) Because I subjectively enjoyed them. I do appreciate the wisdom. I will have to keep that in mind. Note to self: Keep It Simple Stupid!

Take a look at 'creative photography' books published in the 70s and 80s. They look terribly dated.

Yet somehow, the look of the Hollywood glamor photographers of the 30s and 40s (but not the 20s and 50s) still holds up. The reason is that they avoided being too creative...

In the 20s, heavy diffusion was popular...
http://c2.api.ning.com/files/oDeQ5W...I4UJoNk6d2gDcXSSk8riliyoPmitpA/756409372.jpeg

It looks so lame today...but at the time this was the 'look'...

In the 30s, they developed the 'classic' Hollywood portrait:
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00032/crawford_getty700_32283t.jpg
http://jackandhill.typepad.com/jack_and_hill_a_beauty_bl/images/2008/07/24/crawford_retouched.jpg

In the 50s, they started getting gimmicky...

 

[thebeatles]

Sometimes you have to be the one who resists the fads of the moment. Years and years from now, these will look....just silly. The less 'creative' you are the better. Be strong enough not to bend to fashions and fads...do the job with a view to 'lasting value'....

Go for content and emotional connection, not manipulation...

Take photographs that their great-grandchildren will appreciate...

Don't copy what everyone else is doing, be distinctive in the quality of your work...

Thanks for the wise words. I do have the originals which are not manipulated so much, kind of like the last shot I posted, and those are the shots they send to the bride. I posted my takes, (...colors all screwed up...) Because I subjectively enjoyed them. I do appreciate the wisdom. I will have to keep that in mind. Note to self: Keep It Simple Stupid!

Take a look at 'creative photography' books published in the 70s and 80s. They look terribly dated.

Yet somehow, the look of the Hollywood glamor photographers of the 30s and 40s (but not the 20s and 50s) still holds up. The reason is that they avoided being too creative...

In the 20s, heavy diffusion was popular...
http://c2.api.ning.com/files/oDeQ5W...I4UJoNk6d2gDcXSSk8riliyoPmitpA/756409372.jpeg

It looks so lame today...but at the time this was the 'look'...

In the 30s, they developed the 'classic' Hollywood portrait:
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00032/crawford_getty700_32283t.jpg
http://jackandhill.typepad.com/jack_and_hill_a_beauty_bl/images/2008/07/24/crawford_retouched.jpg

In the 50s, they started getting gimmicky...

Interesting example. Thanks for the links as well. :thumbup: For me, being an amateur, after looking at tons of flickr photos exhibiting lo-fi looks, cross processed looks, "bokeh", hdr, etc., I get so caught up in trying to achieve these styles, that I forget what photography is all about. I can remember growing up looking at National Geographic magazines thinking: "What an amazing photo!" or "What an amazing subject!", I cannot, however, remember thinking about the film effects, processing, "bokeh", etc. I will say that I have involuntarily acquired a taste for today's fads, which is fine, but I appreciate the point you are making, as it is completely valid. :thumbup:

 

[Petraio Prime]

Thanks for the wise words. I do have the originals which are not manipulated so much, kind of like the last shot I posted, and those are the shots they send to the bride. I posted my takes, (...colors all screwed up...) Because I subjectively enjoyed them. I do appreciate the wisdom. I will have to keep that in mind. Note to self: Keep It Simple Stupid!

Take a look at 'creative photography' books published in the 70s and 80s. They look terribly dated.

Yet somehow, the look of the Hollywood glamor photographers of the 30s and 40s (but not the 20s and 50s) still holds up. The reason is that they avoided being too creative...

In the 20s, heavy diffusion was popular...
http://c2.api.ning.com/files/oDeQ5W...I4UJoNk6d2gDcXSSk8riliyoPmitpA/756409372.jpeg

It looks so lame today...but at the time this was the 'look'...

In the 30s, they developed the 'classic' Hollywood portrait:
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00032/crawford_getty700_32283t.jpg
http://jackandhill.typepad.com/jack_and_hill_a_beauty_bl/images/2008/07/24/crawford_retouched.jpg

In the 50s, they started getting gimmicky...

Interesting example. Thanks for the links as well. :thumbup: For me, being an amateur, after looking at tons of flickr photos exhibiting lo-fi looks, cross processed looks, "bokeh", hdr, etc., I get so caught up in trying to achieve these styles, that I forget what photography is all about. I can remember growing up looking at National Geographic magazines thinking: "What an amazing photo!" or "What an amazing subject!", I cannot, however, remember thinking about the film effects, processing, "bokeh", etc. I will say that I have involuntarily acquired a taste for today's fads, which is fine, but I appreciate the point you are making, as it is completely valid. :thumbup:

I don't pay any attention to what anyone else is doing.

It's not from egotism or anything like that, but for the reasons you just stated. I suggest you do the same. Quit looking at other people's work, and don't ask them for critiques. Develop your own style independently. Try to look at classic Hollywood portraits for inspiration.

 

[thebeatles]

Take a look at 'creative photography' books published in the 70s and 80s. They look terribly dated.

Yet somehow, the look of the Hollywood glamor photographers of the 30s and 40s (but not the 20s and 50s) still holds up. The reason is that they avoided being too creative...

In the 20s, heavy diffusion was popular...
http://c2.api.ning.com/files/oDeQ5W...I4UJoNk6d2gDcXSSk8riliyoPmitpA/756409372.jpeg

It looks so lame today...but at the time this was the 'look'...

In the 30s, they developed the 'classic' Hollywood portrait:
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00032/crawford_getty700_32283t.jpg
http://jackandhill.typepad.com/jack_and_hill_a_beauty_bl/images/2008/07/24/crawford_retouched.jpg

In the 50s, they started getting gimmicky...

Interesting example. Thanks for the links as well. :thumbup: For me, being an amateur, after looking at tons of flickr photos exhibiting lo-fi looks, cross processed looks, "bokeh", hdr, etc., I get so caught up in trying to achieve these styles, that I forget what photography is all about. I can remember growing up looking at National Geographic magazines thinking: "What an amazing photo!" or "What an amazing subject!", I cannot, however, remember thinking about the film effects, processing, "bokeh", etc. I will say that I have involuntarily acquired a taste for today's fads, which is fine, but I appreciate the point you are making, as it is completely valid. :thumbup:

I don't pay any attention to what anyone else is doing.

It's not from egotism or anything like that, but for the reasons you just stated. I suggest you do the same. Quit looking at other people's work, and don't ask them for critiques. Develop your own style independently. Try to look at classic Hollywood portraits for inspiration.

Would using classic Hollywood portraits for inspiration help my develop my own style independently? I am not trying to argue, just discuss.

If one were a musician, would you tell him to ignore different styles, genres, and fads and listen to broadway tunes for inspiration and develop his own style? What if the musician enjoyed jazz, or metal? Sorry if this is a stupid analogy.

 

[tdz16]

Sometimes you have to be the one who resists the fads of the moment. Years and years from now, these will look....just silly. The less 'creative' you are the better. Be strong enough not to bend to fashions and fads...do the job with a view to 'lasting value'....

Go for content and emotional connection, not manipulation...

Take photographs that their great-grandchildren will appreciate...

Don't copy what everyone else is doing, be distinctive in the quality of your work...

Thanks for the wise words. I do have the originals which are not manipulated so much, kind of like the last shot I posted, and those are the shots they send to the bride. I posted my takes, (...colors all screwed up...) Because I subjectively enjoyed them. I do appreciate the wisdom. I will have to keep that in mind. Note to self: Keep It Simple Stupid!

Take a look at 'creative photography' books published in the 70s and 80s. They look terribly dated.

Yet somehow, the look of the Hollywood glamor photographers of the 30s and 40s (but not the 20s and 50s) still holds up. The reason is that they avoided being too creative...

In the 20s, heavy diffusion was popular...
http://c2.api.ning.com/files/oDeQ5W...I4UJoNk6d2gDcXSSk8riliyoPmitpA/756409372.jpeg

It looks so lame today...but at the time this was the 'look'...

In the 30s, they developed the 'classic' Hollywood portrait:
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00032/crawford_getty700_32283t.jpg
http://jackandhill.typepad.com/jack_and_hill_a_beauty_bl/images/2008/07/24/crawford_retouched.jpg

In the 50s, they started getting gimmicky...

As much as I've stayed away from commenting on some of your very "assertive/strong-willed" posts, I have to say I think you made a pretty good point here and the examples given are good support.

My only argument would be that even though the shot from the 20's looks gimmicky, doesn't it hold some value that without a date across the photo, we would know its from that era? That its a signature of sorts for photography of that time? You know, the whole can't get to point "C" without passing through "A" and "B"?

I feel like you look at photography as more of a science than an art. Art is meant to be manipulated to the artists tastes and feeling towards the subject. I will say that Wedding photography is more direct/scientific because you are there to do what the B&G want, so less creativity comes into play, but that being said, if what the OP produced was what they wanted, then they are in fact "good shots". Its pretty cut and dry.

~Tom

 

[meccalli]

the troll surfaced again..didn't he.. neways

1. the beatles rock

2. that advice on the cross processing...man you've extended my ps skills for life...thank you much!!

3. please save this artsy topic for discussions..i think the photos here were really great and the photographer (artist) is responsible for creating and manipulating these images.kudos to you OP.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Interesting example. Thanks for the links as well. :thumbup: For me, being an amateur, after looking at tons of flickr photos exhibiting lo-fi looks, cross processed looks, "bokeh", hdr, etc., I get so caught up in trying to achieve these styles, that I forget what photography is all about. I can remember growing up looking at National Geographic magazines thinking: "What an amazing photo!" or "What an amazing subject!", I cannot, however, remember thinking about the film effects, processing, "bokeh", etc. I will say that I have involuntarily acquired a taste for today's fads, which is fine, but I appreciate the point you are making, as it is completely valid. :thumbup:

I don't pay any attention to what anyone else is doing.

It's not from egotism or anything like that, but for the reasons you just stated. I suggest you do the same. Quit looking at other people's work, and don't ask them for critiques. Develop your own style independently. Try to look at classic Hollywood portraits for inspiration.

Would using classic Hollywood portraits for inspiration help my develop my own style independently? I am not trying to argue, just discuss.

If one were a musician, would you tell him to ignore different styles, genres, and fads and listen to broadway tunes for inspiration and develop his own style? What if the musician enjoyed jazz, or metal? Sorry if this is a stupid analogy.

Music is somewhat different. I would encourage him to listen to very different music (Japanese or something) to clear his head of contemporary and local influences.

Also, there is a difference between 'inspiration' and 'influence'.

Anyway, I pay no attention to what anyone else is doing these days in photography.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Thanks for the wise words. I do have the originals which are not manipulated so much, kind of like the last shot I posted, and those are the shots they send to the bride. I posted my takes, (...colors all screwed up...) Because I subjectively enjoyed them. I do appreciate the wisdom. I will have to keep that in mind. Note to self: Keep It Simple Stupid!

Take a look at 'creative photography' books published in the 70s and 80s. They look terribly dated.

Yet somehow, the look of the Hollywood glamor photographers of the 30s and 40s (but not the 20s and 50s) still holds up. The reason is that they avoided being too creative...

In the 20s, heavy diffusion was popular...
http://c2.api.ning.com/files/oDeQ5W...I4UJoNk6d2gDcXSSk8riliyoPmitpA/756409372.jpeg

It looks so lame today...but at the time this was the 'look'...

In the 30s, they developed the 'classic' Hollywood portrait:
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00032/crawford_getty700_32283t.jpg
http://jackandhill.typepad.com/jack_and_hill_a_beauty_bl/images/2008/07/24/crawford_retouched.jpg

In the 50s, they started getting gimmicky...

As much as I've stayed away from commenting on some of your very "assertive/strong-willed" posts, I have to say I think you made a pretty good point here and the examples given are good support.

My only argument would be that even though the shot from the 20's looks gimmicky, doesn't it hold some value that without a date across the photo, we would know its from that era? That its a signature of sorts for photography of that time? You know, the whole can't get to point "C" without passing through "A" and "B"?

I feel like you look at photography as more of a science than an art. Art is meant to be manipulated to the artists tastes and feeling towards the subject. I will say that Wedding photography is more direct/scientific because you are there to do what the B&G want, so less creativity comes into play, but that being said, if what the OP produced was what they wanted, then they are in fact "good shots". Its pretty cut and dry.

~Tom

A lot of the 20s portraits were diffused heavily. The 30s stuff is altogether different. Night and day difference.