Wedding shots, retouch or not?

[Hair Bear]

Thats what I have done Alex, i have retouched 2 shots and left 598 as I shot them

Apart from taking a zit off a brides maid at her request!

 

[Alex_B]

Thats what I have done Alex, i have retouched 2 shots and left 598 as I shot them

Apart from taking a zit off a brides maid at her request!

would give them both original and manipulated image then.

oh, and technically that was nice work by the way

 

[Hair Bear]

I will show them the images and then the retouch for fun, lets see what they say. Thanks Alex

 

[bowronfam3]

Here's what I would've done with photo #1...this is cropped to 4x6.

 

[JimmyJaceyMom]

That looks very nice too bowromfam3.

And very good points made on all accounts from everyone. I love this place. It makes me think.

 

[Hair Bear]

good crop, i'd still retouch it. but nice crop suggestion

 

[dgs]

both scenes after manipulation are not really scenes from the wedding anymore.

Really?

The emotion well captured of bride and father (?) is not real? Does this mean that a flash should never be used because the reception hall was dark? Did it mean in ye aulde film days that a print should have never been dodged or burned in the darkroom? Are all the group poses of bridal parties bogus in that it wasn't part of the ceremony and are, in fact, arrangements managed and controlled by the photographer either before or after the actual fact?

Regardless of current buzzwords like PJ style, it seems to me that wedding photography isn't now and really never has been strict journalism or an archival endeavor.

It seems to me that a wedding book is a collection of portraits. The ethical considerations are much the same. The wedding photographer is not commissioned by church or state to document an historical event. The 'tog is hired to produce images of an event that inherently contains a great deal of fantasy and "glamour". To sniff indignantly about that seems, to me at least, a bit disingenuous.

 

[skieur]

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

I would go even further in retouching. Photography has never been meant to be a documentation of reality. The objective of wedding photography is simply to flatter the subject. On the other hand I would hope that the lighting and colour was better in other shots and that I did not have to spend time improving these.

skieur

 

[AprilRamone]

Hairbear, first of all, I too think you did a nice job of editing these two photos. But, to address your original question of how much would I edit these two shots....In the first, I definitely wouldn't have taken the time to edit out the sink and everthing because I don't feel that it's too distracting. I do like what Bowronfam did with the shot. I would be more inclined to just crop out something that I didn't like and not always worry about keeping a normal ratio.

The second one though, I probably would want to do something like what you did to get rid of the mirror because I did find it pretty distracting in that one.

I think once you have to keep spending time editing your shots that could more easily have been fixed before you took it you'll learn to compose better and will save yourself a ton of time

But, even so, I think every photographer gets shots that they look at and think that they should have moved something away from the background and whatnot. For me, the amount I work on the image depends on how good of an image it is in the first place. I'm not really keen on trying to do a TON of time editing and cloning and stuff just to make a so so shot a slightly better so so shot. But, if it's already a really decent shot and just has a few things that I know will really make the image standout if removed, I'll do it. But, only you can decide how to make that decision


One other thing I wanted to say was that I wouldn't necessarily show them both versions because then they might wonder why you don't do such dramatic editing on every shot. Or they might start asking for the world editing-wise...(I get people asking me to just photoshop in people or completely change things in photographs all the time...)

 

[Alex_B]

Really?

The emotion well captured of bride and father (?) is not real? Does this mean that a flash should never be used because the reception hall was dark?

I am not preaching ethics here at all.

I do approve manipulation to images.

But if it was my wedding, I would want reality to be depicted, at least in a geometrical sense. In the sense of where things were. the flash has nothing to do with that, and that emotion is part of the image, and is real of course (although it is not real on all photographs in the business, since on some the smile might have been enhacend with PS to hide the bride being not happy)

I am not starting the dogma discussion about post-processing or no post-processing here, since every image is processed anyway.

 

[Alex_B]

One other thing I wanted to say was that I wouldn't necessarily show them both versions because then they might wonder why you don't do such dramatic editing on every shot. Or they might start asking for the world editing-wise...(I get people asking me to just photoshop in people or completely change things in photographs all the time...)

If they want that .. tell them your rate for that extra editing. If they are willing to pay, do it.

 

[dgs]

Alex wrote:

I am not preaching ethics here at all.

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.

Alex,

I have no quarrel with you and am not seeking one. I just probably shouldn't post on days I'm feeling testy *grin*

But I do think it's an ethical discussion. Language like "selling your soul" (even with a smiley face) and "deconstructing reality" place the discussion into ethical territory, it seems to me. And the issues deserve close examination.

And I think it's also a matter involving some degree of condescension. That's probably what put the burr under my saddle. It doesn't seem to me helpful to the OP.

Digital photography as put tools formerly reserved to the very few in the hands of many. It has no doubt given birth to abuses. Reuters is one of many examples.

Hair Bear posted two pics (one I think is pretty awful and one I think is pretty good) taken at a wedding. The one I like captures a truly glowing bride and her father expressing great joy. This is a good thing. His edit doesn't embellish, deceive or falsify. Good job, podner *grin*

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

Just a thought folks..

You never tell a client how badly you did somethig. It destroys the magic.

You give them the best you can . If they don't like it they will tell you... (WOW HOW they will tell you).

You can deconstruct reality, prostitute your artistic talent, Dance on a crocadile wearing a TooToo and drinking custard.

LETS NOT Forget this is a memory for a young woman, of what will hopefully be the best and most important day of her life. Be constructive and artistic in your own time. Give the girl the very best images you can muster... something that she and her husband can look at 40 --- 50--- 60 years from now.

The images are fine. If she liked them ... even better. there are arguments for the washing up in the image . And against.

Just do the best you can and make her smile.

 

[Hair Bear]

Good post groupcaptain

 

[mysteryscribe]

The naked truth is I will do what I can to improve the images till I get sick of it then I will stop.... It isn't so much about the bride as it is about me. when I feel like I will barf if I make one more edit, I'm through.

that is in general, I haven't done but one wedding since all this became readily do able, but I'm sure I will feel the same after a hundred.