Wedding shots, retouch or not?

[Hair Bear]

I know the dress shot could have been better and I need to work on creativity of the shot to avoid some of these issues but

given the shot how much would you retouch?

1

2

The sink just had to go I thought

and on this one the black patch in the background was distracting

3

4

 

[Rusty_Tripod]

Personally, I prefer to crop rather than deconstruct reality.

Rusty Tripod

 

[Hair Bear]

How would you have cropped those two Rusty, while keeping the aspect ratio to match the rest of the pictures ?

 

[dgs]

Personally, I don't think you are at risk of deconstructing reality.

You've not modified the subjects of the photographs, in my view. In fact, on the dress I may have attempted to do even more (like paint that door something other than white and then redo WB to brighten the dress itself . . . although I'm betting you'll go looking for a beige wall next time *grin*)

Seems to me your job as a wedding 'tog is preserving memories, not archiving kitchen sinks. I'd worry no more about what you've done here than I would about removing a zit that suddenly appeared on the bride's chin as a nervous reaction.

 

[JimmyJaceyMom]

I'm a fan of cloning. I think cropping would have cut off the bottom of the dress and therefor taken away an important detail of the subject. And I think it was a nice job you did there.
The biride won't even notice unless you show her the before and after.

 

[Rusty_Tripod]

Personally, neither one is a "keeper" for me. I would have moved the dress in the first and moved my position in the second. If I crop as much as I can before I shoot, I do not have to "shop" to save an image that probably is not worth saving anyway.

Rusty Tripod

 

[mysteryscribe]

Doing it better next time is the purpose of learning, sometimes you still have to save the shot you have.....

When I was at your place the only way to get an edit was to pay out the nose.. sometimes (as in the wedding) you can't go back and do it again. Yes learn from what you have to edit, but don't throw away a shot because it needs editing either.

By the way you are pretty good at it.

 

[Hair Bear]

Sorry mystery how has that helped? The black area is still visable and the shot has not retained the aspect ratio

And no i don't mind your suggestion, in fact thats exactly what i was looking for

 

[Hair Bear]

hind sight is a wonder full thing Rusty and thats why I stated the image wasn't good and I should have rethought it at the time. I didn't and here we are.

You suggested a crop and I asked you how you would

 

[mysteryscribe]

Airbrush the black spot in two..... just continue the wall on if that is the one we are talking about.

 

[NJMAN]

Personally, I don't think you are at risk of deconstructing reality.

You've not modified the subjects of the photographs, in my view. In fact, on the dress I may have attempted to do even more (like paint that door something other than white and then redo WB to brighten the dress itself . . . although I'm betting you'll go looking for a beige wall next time *grin*)

Seems to me your job as a wedding 'tog is preserving memories, not archiving kitchen sinks. I'd worry no more about what you've done here than I would about removing a zit that suddenly appeared on the bride's chin as a nervous reaction.

I agree. I am in favor of cloning when its appropriate. If it can enhance a photo without altering the subject in a negative way, I am all for it. I think you did a very seamless job of getting rid of that needless distraction. The photo has more character because the sink is gone.

NJ

 

[LisaD]

ON shot #2 I would turn it all black and white to lose the distracting colors of the wall and then "spot color" the dress back to it's original state.
Try it and see how you like it - that's how I tone down some background stuff sometimes. You could have also moved way in on the hip broach and gotten all the texture of the busseled satin.

 

[Alex_B]

both scenes after manipulation are not really scenes from the wedding anymore. The place shown never existed.

these should be images that document an event, which after manipulation they do not truly.

In 40 or 50 years time, people will be glad to have those parts of the bathroom and the liquid soap and other products in it, since it is those things which connect the image with 2007-reality.

same with the mirror in the second shot. it relates the scene with the spot where it happened.

but that is just my personal feelings

 

[mysteryscribe]

I always thought the same thing alex, but the problem in the real world is if you have compete with the people editing you have a problem shooting pure documentary style. Everybody wants glitz now. You can explain that if you have zit on your wedding day, it's just a fact you have to live with, but they won't buy it. they will think you lack the skill to get rid of it. So the reality is if you want to compete you have to adapt at least a little anyway.

Gone are the days when we could get away with that.

 

[Alex_B]

[...] they will think you lack the skill to get rid of it. So the reality is if you want to compete you have to adapt at least a little anyway.

Gone are the days when we could get away with that.

you are probably right with that one, sad though!


I do understand that people want to have 2 or 3 glamour shots to put up on the wall and in the family shrine, but those other 50 to 500 shots, they should show the event in some way. If not, all the weddings will look almost the same, and you could just take a standard set of wedding images and clone in the different faces ...


Another example of being a pro means selling your soul .. you cannot do what you like, but you have to do what the customers want.