Heartpatrick Weddings - Alex and Elsa

[heartpatrick]

Hi All,

Sharing a set of photos from last week's wedding. Hope you like them. ^_^

Pic 1:

Pic 2:

Pic 3:

Pic 4:

Pic 5:

Pic 6:

Pic 7:

Pic 8:

I'll find time to post more here soon. Otherwise, the full album is available here:

Heartpatrick Weddings - Alex and Elsa


Thanks all.



Regards,
Pat
Heartpatrick: Malaysia Wedding Photographer

 

[camz]

Very interesting PP. I like the matte/flat finish however it's the pixelization that's getting to me. If that was the purpose it's good for web viewing but how does it come out in print?

1: Very non traditional headshot and I think it's beautiful. It's really a great accent shot.

2: To pixelized for my taste and you shed some light for me, I've never given lash extensions a deserving detail shot.

3: Very artistic. Just the right DOF for me since the make up artist is working on her right eye.

4: Nothing really special

5: Good catch of emotion. Love the laughter shots from the bride myself

6: Great capture again, just would've loved to seen the whole dress and upped the exposure a bit on her face.

7: My favorite..beautiful!

8: A little underexposed for my taste and the photographers in the background is getting to me.


You have alot of very interesting ways of framing your work. I'm itching to see whole shots though. Whole shots of the dress, bride, groom and everything. Would've loved to seen a bigger picture perspective.

Very interesting though. It's like a fashion magazine shoot wedding from what I've seen so far

 

[manaheim]

Really all very interesting. I agree with everything camz said. My original reaction was "oh man this image is broken..." but then I was like "oh, no, wait... he's got a style going... actually... that's pretty cool!"

The emotion capture and such is really fantastic. I didn't love the fake eyelashes one, but 6? Wow. Awesome.

Really a very unique take on weddings. I like it a lot. I'm very glad you shared these.

 

[Derrel]

I pulled several of these into Photoshop and I noticed that the black point had not been set on any of the images I opened. It looks like you're prone to underexposing images as well, since image 6 appears to be the only image that has a full range exposure.

What happened on image 4 and 5? And how are you processing these images? On my calibrated monitor these all,except for image 6, appear to have very flat, washed-out blacks and very un-saturated colors. Opening the files and looking under the hood, I see some oddly-distorted histograms,and the lack of a black point setting makes me wonder what your prints might look like from image to image.

Okay, I went to your link and looked through the entire take. Those are some terrible pictures technically. Will you ever turn the camera to shoot a vertical? The photo of the bride's helpers fitting her dress backstage has somebody's belly in the left side of the image and a Mikrotek scanner box in the right hand side of the image--that shot,as well as numerous others, screams out for a vertical camera orientation.

The green skin tones, the sallow and yellow color balance, the chronic underexposures shot after shot in the entire wedding take...wow....these are absolutely unacceptable as professional photographs. You've got a severe case of horizontalitis. Your color has major problems as well, with large swings, running the gamut from mildly unacceptable to wildly unacceptable. Some of the individual frames have skin tones that no client would find acceptable, like the green-jacketed grandmother with the yellow skin tone cast. On the full set, the color and exposure on much of the reception photos is just dreadful. Your black tones are inky and without any detail on most all of your exposures. The few samples you have managed to show us here are the best of what you managed to get-the rest of what you got is much weaker technically, and the lack of a single vertical photo is telling.

 

[camz]

I pulled several of these into Photoshop and I noticed that the black point had not been set on any of the images I opened. It looks like you're prone to underexposing images as well, since image 6 appears to be the only image that has a full range exposure.

What happened on image 4 and 5? And how are you processing these images? On my calibrated monitor these all,except for image 6, appear to have very flat, washed-out blacks and very un-saturated colors. Opening the files and looking under the hood, I see some oddly-distorted histograms,and the lack of a black point setting makes me wonder what your prints might look like from image to image.

Okay, I went to your link and looked through the entire take. Those are some terrible pictures technically. Will you ever turn the camera to shoot a vertical? The photo of the bride's hepers fitting her dress backstage has somebody's belly in the left side of the image and a Mikrotek scanner box in the right hand side of the image--that screams for a vertical camera orientation.

The green skin tones, the sallow and yellow color balance, the chronic underexposures shot after shot in the entire wedding take...wow....these are absolutely unacceptable as professional photographs. You've got a severe case of horizontalitis. Your color has major problems as well, with large swings, running the gamut from mildly unacceptable to wildly unacceptable. Some of the individual frames have skin tones that no client would find acceptable, like the green grandmother. On the full set, the color and exposure on much of the reception photos is just dreadful. Your black tones are inky and without any detail on most all of your exposures. The few samples you have managed to show us here are the best of what you managed to get-the rest of what you got is much weaker technically, and the lack of a single vertical photo is telling.

Derrel there's no doubt in the world that you are probably if not the most technical guy I've seen here in TPF. But fashion photography is up for interpretation. It's like criticizing an abstract painting on how non symeterical the patterns are. Art = it's just impossible to look at it from an academia stand point IMO.

I looked at his website too and and I think his finish is based on style and not non-tradition technicalities. I personally like them myself.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ yeah, I agree.

I almost look at the images and think "Old Time Magazine capture of a wedding in the 70s" or something.

 

[Derrel]

camz, I looked at the entire wedding take at the link he posted,and to say it again, these are totally unacceptable quality. They are virtually all underexposed. Many have strong cyan color casts. Others have green casts. The people look absolutely yellow in many of them.

I am intimately familiar with fashion photography, but looking at the entire set posted, the work is exceedingly weak,both aesthetically and technically. The original photographer's basic captures are very,very far off the mark,and I think he's entirely self-taught and very inexperienced.

Did you go to the site linked and look at the *entire* set, as I did? The ones shown here are the best, by far. The others are just simply unacceptable.
Especially in this day and age of quality Strobist type lighting and high-ISO Nikons and Canons, these are just simply below the level of even a good second shooter.

 

[manaheim]

hehehe...

 

[manaheim]

Derel, seriously no way. Those shots and post processing are by NO means an accident. This was an intentional manner of handling things. There's a clear style there.

 

[heartpatrick]

wow, thanks all for taking your time to pen down your thoughts around this set of photos. i have to say indeed my style is erm non-traditional, to put it in a very safe way. Things like black point, colour balance, noise and such are definitely not on the top of my watch list when shooting and editing my pics, and instead I shoot with my heart open to the emotions of people around me, which I thought should be what photojournalism is all about, especially when covering weddings.

Thanks!

 

[manaheim]

^^^ ok, well now I take it back.

heart, you're saying that look you're achieving... is NOT intentional? If so... bizarre. I've never seen anyone achieve that look by accident. Funny. <shrug>

btw... "heart open to the yadda yadda..." that has to be among the cheesiest things I've ever heard anyone say.

No offense, but... come on!

 

[heartpatrick]

^^^ ok, well now I take it back.

heart, you're saying that look you're achieving... is NOT intentional? If so... bizarre. I've never seen anyone achieve that look by accident. Funny. <shrug>

btw... "heart open to the yadda yadda..." that has to be among the cheesiest things I've ever heard anyone say.

No offense, but... come on!

haha no no, i'm saying my style IS intentional of course. what i meant is personally i don't judge a pic by its technical qualities, but instead by the emotions that it conveys from looking at it.

 

[manaheim]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh ok.

Well, I feel a little less ridiculous then.

Mind you... just a little.

 

[camz]

Ok I just came back looking at your whole site and all your posts in the past. I think they are great! You know I highly appreciate what you do, it's such a different eye from how I see things...awesome work!

Chris LOL your totally on the ball man. Having that same style and seeing Heart's posts go all the way back since 2006 with that type of finish can't be some SOOC constant errors.

 

[camz]

haha no no, i'm saying my style IS intentional of course. what i meant is personally i don't judge a pic by its technical qualities, but instead by the emotions that it conveys from looking at it.

You know Derrel has a point though...I'm still curious if you're getting the same results in print as well?